Deletion of Nexus War (3rd nomination)

Comment: as per , the newly added source fits both ''"significant coverage"'' and ''"reliable source"'' criterions. While ''"multiple sources are generally preferred"'', it is not compulsory. I see no reason why this article shouldn't be allowed to stay
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Im not logged in so im not going to "vote", but i will leave a comment. Dont think it would make much of a difference either way, but i need to get this off my chest. Im going to say that an insistence on dead tree sources for online media is unfair, not just to this article, but much of the content of the internet. Many of these websites may have thousands of followers, large numbers of interesting innovations and be otherwise worthy of an article here, but this dead tree standard has them stumped because mainstream publishing does not like to do stories about them, more than likely because there arent a terribly large number of magazines covering the subject and they have to meet a certain level of profitability which printing extra pages doesnt really help. Its because of this rather obvious problem that faces most online media that you really should lean towards inclusionism, rather than deltionism as you have been doing for quite some time. Thats not to say you should let everything stay, just that you should apply common sense on a case by case basis instead of conducting purges, the likes of which have been performed against the webcomics community in the last couple of years. Its probably a good idea to have a seperate set of notability guidelines written up to cover online media simply because its patently obvious the existing ones do not treat it fairly. This media seems to be as good a place as any to apply , specifically with regards to Notability. --Special:Contributions/121.44.124.196|121.44.124.196
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: Besides the  players of this game above, I do not see this game as being notable. Furthermore, I doubt it ever will be. In the genre of text based MMORPGs, there are very few sources around, and the hopeful comments above that there will be are a filibuster. Finally, the article was deleted last time, with the note that sources may become available, and that the article may be recreated at that time. No sources have appeared now, a year later
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: The game may be non-notable to most people(I admit, I play it). However, I believe it to be better long-term to leave the wiki-page in existence, with the caveat that more sources are to be listed as they become available. The article itself needs to note the beta nature of the game, and the low userbase. As well, there is absolutely NO chance of creating a decent article from several bad deleted attempts at one so long as there is constant deletion. As a member of the Nexus War community, I can tell you there is a want for a Wikipedia page. Currently, however, popular sentiment is closer to (I paraphrase) "''wiki-nazis don't play the game, so they just delete it as being non-notable''". Surely we pride ourselves on being inclusive, rather than exclusive? The apathy with which this (rather good) game is treated frankly appalls me. Keep in mind that problems like these are one of the major reasons that people dislike Wikipedia - don't beat up on the |helpful contributors. I would rather not get into the "look at this less-notable article, etc" game, as that is a sure road to madness(I could name a few articles that qualify
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)