Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Date with Death

A Date with Death

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The intent of this is not to be

WP:VG/S and the reliability of The Boss Rush Network seems doubtful. Obviously it's not a commentary on the quality of the game, it's simply objectively stating it is not notable enough for a page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Firstly, I believe the

reliable source. “ These guidelines are met here. ThanatosApprentice (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - I don't consider PC Gamer as significant coverage since it mostly quotes user reviews and the developer, and has very little of the writer's own commentary. Siliconera is reliable and SIGCOV but 1 article is not enough to meet GNG. --Mika1h (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I totally agree with ThanatosApprentice's first sentence, the template could've been put up. I don't get what the nom means by

WP:UGC. MK at your service. 15:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Placing a notability tag on a new article after a due

WP:BEFORE is just deferring the issue. And the editor is rather experienced like you point out, so they know moving to mainspace might result in AFD (Generally I think if they may like to continue working on it, re-draftify and insist submitting to AFC). IgelRM (talk) 23:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment I'll admit that the sources could have been a little beefier, but I still think there's enough here that full-on deletion wouldn't be warranted. I'd instead suggest applying the Template:Notability tag for the time being.

Regarding MK's last comment,

WP:UGC refers to sourcing things like blogs and forums, which I did not do. ThanatosApprentice (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I believed that tagging it wouldn't really be able to change anything; from a detailed search I couldn't find more sources. Obviously, if you know of any better ones that exist, make them be known. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redraftify If this article's deletion is completely unavoidable, I'd at least like to request that it be moved back into the draft namespace so I can continue bringing it up the standard if it receives more significant coverage. ThanatosApprentice (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are best off saving the article locally; such as in a txt file of some kind; drafts are for articles that have already been proven notable and they will be deleted after a certain period of time if not published. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If no new significant coverage surfaces within that timeframe, I will accept the consequences. ThanatosApprentice (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]