Talk:AFL (2011 video game)

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 March 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Australia: Australian rules football Low‑importance

	Australia portal AFL (2011 video game) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian rules football (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Jackpot World (1 participant)
Bejeweled Stars (5 participants)
Melee (game terminology) (5 participants)
Godzilla: Monster of Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Crazy Bus (13 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Article class

Do people agree that this is start class and low importance? Also if anyone spots a better ref but doesn't have time to incorporate it feel free to drop it here and I'll add it to the main article.--Senor Freebie (talk) 06:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

I think this page should be deleted. It is the same game, but it's only the Wii.

It's a totally different game made by a different developer, with a different design and a different feature set. I vote the article stays. Sequal1 (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll help build it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.238.205.153 (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But could we please, move it to AFL (Wii). It would make it easier for the reader to locate the article. And for example, LittleBigPlanet PSP has done this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.238.205.153 (talk) 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Against; As stated, different game, different gameplay, different feature set, different platform, different name, different developer. The only similarities are A - timing, B - publisher, C - subject. Unsure on move ... could we investigate the convention more?--Senor Freebie (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, IP user; re: [[1]] Why did you remove this reference and the information from it? It was fairly clearly demonstrated by Big Ant that this was an official announcement of features etc. Was the issue undue weight? I'm fairly sure that when another source points to the legitimacy of a forum post this demonstrates its validity as a source where no other source exists.--Senor Freebie (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Senor Freebie, I have agreed to leave it up. And I removed some information. Since it is unneeded, and messy. The references, were not put in properly. Please, do put in refrences and information. But clean it up, and fix the grammer. Make it, to make sense. And please, someone change the name of the page "AFL (Wii)". It's alot easier to locate the page, if that is done. Little Big Planet on the PSP for example. Has done this for their wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.238.205.153 (talk) 06:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think the information was unneeded / messy? The references were put in properly. Also, grammar is the spelling you're looking for.--Senor Freebie (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason this was marked for deletion again without any mention here this time about why. It has been explained in the talk page why this should stay and how it differs from another article. Admin, please remove the tag. Thanks. Cliffsteinman (talk) 07:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The tag stays, until This discussion is over. (next time, actually take the time to read more of the tag than the word "DELETION")WuhWuzDat 07:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]