- 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 Moved to Draft. Spartaz Humbug! 12:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC) Now at Draft:Games_for_the_Many butyou can move it within draft per editorial consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 12:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Games for the Many
- Games for the Many ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Founded only 11 months ago - fails WP:SUSTAINED. References provided are either mentions-in-passing or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations (fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND). Edwardx ( talk) 12:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 12:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 12:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 12:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - @ Edwardx: you are definitely right about the general passing reference/quotation bit - the gamesindustrybiz is the only reference not to fall afoul of that, I feel. I would not say that it violates WP:SUSTAINED to a sufficiently strong degree to necessitate deletion on that ground. I am ambivalent about this particular article, but was surprised not to see a CorbynRun page - many of the issues about the referencing issue would go away and it certainly would be more deserving of a page that numerous other comparable ones. Nosebagbear ( talk) 12:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Move to CorbynRun. The article refers to a lot of references that are actually for the game. Video Game developers are rarely notable (Especially only making one game), but the actual game they produced naturally got a lot of press. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 09:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Comment As we've noted CorbynRun would be a better location, but this couldn't just be dropped in as-is - a fairly significant re-formatting/deletion would be needed to make it fit that category. Just wanted to note that in the hope that we don't recommend the creation of an article that would itself be AfDed Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I'd prefer a merge but can't find a good location, so failing that rename as per above. Szzuk ( talk) 18:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Newbiepedian ( talk · C · X! · L) 01:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Newbiepedian ( talk · C · X! · L) 01:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Move to CorbynRun to formalise my viewpoint in my comment. Obviously some trimming needed when it does. I assume that moving a page actually undergoing AfD is either impossible or distinctly frowned upon. Nosebagbear ( talk) 08:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- I would like to see this Draftified under the name of the video game (and/or submitted to AFC afterwhich). It's not obvious to me that the video game meets the bar for
WP:GNG (a few of the sources in the article aren't obviously reliable (or are obviously unreliable)), but even if it does, this article needs a significant rewrite to clearly be about that topic rather than the producing organization. --
Izno (
talk) 14:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- I can understand the draftify argument on the "not appropriate as is" case, but I would have thought that draftifying under a different name was inappropriate - a name change is substantial, and would defeat the grounds for something to be userfyed. I would say if we do draftify, leave as-is, and drop an extended message with our thoughts.
Nosebagbear (
talk) 14:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Nope, no reason we can't decide to rename the page now (except perhaps some
WP:BURO objection that doesn't come to mind)--we should leave a message either way. My notion was
Draft:CorbynRun, not a userfied draft. --
Izno (
talk) 17:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Ah I see Nosebagbear ( talk) 18:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Nope, no reason we can't decide to rename the page now (except perhaps some
WP:BURO objection that doesn't come to mind)--we should leave a message either way. My notion was
Draft:CorbynRun, not a userfied draft. --
Izno (
talk) 17:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- I can understand the draftify argument on the "not appropriate as is" case, but I would have thought that draftifying under a different name was inappropriate - a name change is substantial, and would defeat the grounds for something to be userfyed. I would say if we do draftify, leave as-is, and drop an extended message with our thoughts.
Nosebagbear (
talk) 14:32, 2 May 2018 (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.