Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPET

Poorly-researched article about non-notable game. Prod was removed after inserting first-party references. Alexius08 (talk) 08:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I would think that first-party references would be the best, since they would give the most accurate information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ev149 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Secondary sources are needed as they are what constitute notability, the inclusion criteria of Wikipedia. While primary sources such as those cited provide reliable information, they do not show how the subject is significant in a real-world context. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It exists. Hobit (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep It exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ev149 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It exists. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It exists. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It exists. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It exists. 69.165.153.245 (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It exists. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]