- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 04:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
- Buck (video game) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. Winged Blades Godric 11:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- @ Winged Blades of Godric: This had a no consensus close barely a week ago after a pair of relistings. Why did you renominate it?-- Izno ( talk) 20:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- I have an idea: what about if the nominators would be forced to include the found material if their nomination was found to be unsubtantial / badly researched? Would had two good effects: first less (or more careful) nominations, second better referenced articles. Shaddim ( talk) 19:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
An analysis of sources put forward by the prev. commenter in the last AfD for the subject
|
|---|
- If we choose to have articles on every game covered/reviewed at
WP:VGRS, that's pathetic.
Winged Blades
Godric
04:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- Wait, what? You think it's "pathetic" that we've got a well-maintained list of reliable sources where we base the notability of video games upon? That sounds like WP:ONLYGUIDELINE. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment the article has far too much detail about gameplay. Power~enwiki ( talk) 21:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- keep. as it was already discussed, reception exist. Shaddim ( talk) 08:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, nominator's rationale "if we choose to have articles on every game covered/reviewed at WP:VGRS, that's pathetic", appears to duck of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, if sources which pass WP:GNG have been provided then it is acceptable to have an article. Valoem talk contrib 03:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- Procedural Keep - This is much too soon to be renominating this article, especially since the previous discussion leaned very much on the "keep" side, as noted by the closer.-- Martin IIIa ( talk) 12:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 04:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
- Buck (video game) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. Winged Blades Godric 11:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- @ Winged Blades of Godric: This had a no consensus close barely a week ago after a pair of relistings. Why did you renominate it?-- Izno ( talk) 20:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- I have an idea: what about if the nominators would be forced to include the found material if their nomination was found to be unsubtantial / badly researched? Would had two good effects: first less (or more careful) nominations, second better referenced articles. Shaddim ( talk) 19:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
An analysis of sources put forward by the prev. commenter in the last AfD for the subject
|
|---|
- If we choose to have articles on every game covered/reviewed at
WP:VGRS, that's pathetic.
Winged Blades
Godric
04:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- Wait, what? You think it's "pathetic" that we've got a well-maintained list of reliable sources where we base the notability of video games upon? That sounds like WP:ONLYGUIDELINE. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment the article has far too much detail about gameplay. Power~enwiki ( talk) 21:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- keep. as it was already discussed, reception exist. Shaddim ( talk) 08:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, nominator's rationale "if we choose to have articles on every game covered/reviewed at WP:VGRS, that's pathetic", appears to duck of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, if sources which pass WP:GNG have been provided then it is acceptable to have an article. Valoem talk contrib 03:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- Procedural Keep - This is much too soon to be renominating this article, especially since the previous discussion leaned very much on the "keep" side, as noted by the closer.-- Martin IIIa ( talk) 12:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.