- 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. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 23:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Brogue (video game)
- Brogue (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)
Previous PROD, reason for removal being "This game received very good reviews from the gaming media and has a very dedicated fanbase. How is it of no importance?". I personally can't find anything that makes this article pass WP:GNG. -- Anar chyte 00:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - At least two existing sources in the article, plus a few others with a goggle search [1], [2], [3]. It's probably not going have a typical AAA game article structure but does appear notable. -- MASEM ( t) 00:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - - per sources on talk page. Extremely lazy nomination. Please brush up on deletion policy, especially
WP:BEFORE. A simple search could have found you the sources necessary to meet the
WP:GNG.
Sergecross73
msg me 00:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- The nominator explicitly stated that he/she at least tried to look for sources - that means that
WP:BEFORE was done, and patrollers don't usually search the talk page for sources. Searching this game up with a few different keywords doesn't come with clear cut results. An nominator making an inaccurate nomination doesn't mean that the nominator is clueless on the deletion policy and notability guidelines, nor does it deserve blunt criticism.
Esquivalience
t 01:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Esquivalience - The sources I'm talking about are available on the articles very short talk page, and a few are even in the article itself. If they didn't bother to check in places as obvious as this, I don't think they did a very good job following through on BEFORE. Also, at least one of the sources shows up on the most basic of searches - merely typing the name in at Google. This is found, and reliable per WP:VG/S. Sergecross73 msg me 03:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- The nominator explicitly stated that he/she at least tried to look for sources - that means that
WP:BEFORE was done, and patrollers don't usually search the talk page for sources. Searching this game up with a few different keywords doesn't come with clear cut results. An nominator making an inaccurate nomination doesn't mean that the nominator is clueless on the deletion policy and notability guidelines, nor does it deserve blunt criticism.
Esquivalience
t 01:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Article topic has several hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. (@ Anarchyte, as a WPVG regular, it would be useful to search that custom Google site before listing a video game at AfD.) The Rock, Paper, Shotgun, PC Gamer, and indiegames.com articles are from vetted sources should be just sufficient for the general notability guideline, and then there's also Masem's links above. It isn't a lot—I would like to see more reviews, in particular—but there's more than passing mentions and enough to write an article. – czar 14:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:02, 8 June 2015 (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.