Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AGAST


 * 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. Nja 247 08:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

AGAST

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Procedural nom. This was prod tagged and deleted as part of User:Oo7565's random-deletion-tagging spree; the prod was contested, but someone else then re-added it. As the prod was contested – and the article has been live for five years prior to deletion – I've undeleted it to set up a procedural discussion. Procedural nom so I abstain. –  iride scent  22:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - described as "popular" at Adventuregamers, but that's all I've got. As such, not enough information to support an indivudual article, but should be mentioned in a general article on adventure game creators (I don't think we have one yet, so it might be an idea. History section can start with The Quill and go from there - otherwise game engine is the nearest.) Marasmusine (talk) 11:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I think/hope that sources can be found. At the time this was written requirements for sources etc. were considerably more lax. Given the 'non-RS' hits I think it's likely that RS could be dug up; early days of the net, so not suprising they might not be online. I hope some old magazines etc. might help verify and assert notablilty.  Chzz  ►  07:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'd have to agree here with Marasmusine that there's not many sources out there to be had.  From my little bit of research, it would appear to me that although it generated a fair amount of buzz in the homebrew game development community, it didn't get a whole lot of attention outside of that.  Not to mention that the project seems to have gone unmaintained for several years now, and their forums aren't set up (the article even says this).  I just don't think that this project ever gained enough notability.  Matt (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep There's now a couple of references, though admitedly not of the highest quality. It would be a shame to loose such a venerable article, perhaps given time other sources will turn up? FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2009 (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.