Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Age of Elements


 * 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 no consensus. This does not preclude a bold merging or redirect of the page if talk page consensus can be gained. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Age of Elements

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Attempted PROD, but it was removed, with no reason given for its removal. The article fails WP:GNG due to having only a single reliable source around on the internet. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  12:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  12:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to allow review of the sources added by
 * Comment - I assume the "single reliable source" was probably in reference to http://www.ign.com/articles/2006/05/14/e3-2006-age-of-elements - which is a reasonably detailed source. If I could find any others, I'd !vote keep. But so far, the only other thing I've found was that it was also nominated for IGN's Top Fighting Games of E3 2006, but did not win. Sergecross73   msg me  13:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There's another IGN article for a different platform, but this doesn't constitute significant coverage in multiple works. --Izno (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * - can you provide it? Even if its not significant coverage, I'm trying to clean up a bit, in case enough sourcing can be found. Sergecross73   msg me  16:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I apparently saw the two you did on IGN. --Izno (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nominator. --Izno (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I've rewritten and sourced the article. There's still not a ton, but I've turned it into a decent stub in which all content is sourced, at least. Sergecross73   msg me  15:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the problem still stands, it's a perma-stub made up of entirely incidental descriptions of the game. It's like the video game equivalent of Bigfoot and without any preview articles specifically devoted to it, I don't see how it's notable even if you can amass enough descriptions of it.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * How can you say things like "without any previews specifically devoted to it"? That's obviously not accurate. Your nomination even alludes to a preview. It's listed above. Sergecross73   msg me  03:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * My !vote as above remains delete even after Sergecross's edits. We don't have a significant treatment in multiple works which means this article for now and probably forever given its age will not be notable. --Izno (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  06:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge into a parent article, if the game was cancelled (i.e., never released), per WP:NOTCATALOG. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no direct parent. The nearest article is E3 2006, which itself is a redirect to a list article and which I think would WP:SURPRISE readers following the link. --Izno (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I had thought about merging too, but there aren't many good targets. It'd be a bit of an undue issue to mention at Atari, and List of PSP games doesn't seem to track cancelled games... Sergecross73   msg me  01:13, 17 September 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.