Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquastax


 * 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. No consensus defaulting to the article remaining (the nominator and SwisterTwister have not re-commented after the introduction of the sourced reviews). ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  14:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Aquastax

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Concerns with notability  F ASTILY   07:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as I literally found nothing, the PROD was removed simply with the basis of new changes, but none of that is actually convincing, the one claim of review if still thin and unsubstantial for actually keeping and confirming it's something hopeful and improvable. SwisterTwister   talk  08:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

 References
 * Commment – Some sources are out there that provide coverage and are considered reliable as per WikiProject Video games/Sources. Below are some examples. North America1000 08:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "Aqua Stax". Pocket Gamer.
 * "CTIA 2005 Aqua Stax First Look". Gamespot


 * Commment – The following comment below was left on the talk page for this AfD discussion (link). Moved it here so it is not missed. I added a bullet point for formatting. North America1000 07:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the feedback, have added in more relevant references to avoid deletion. The reason for entering into Wiki is that there were some original games that are not apparent on IOMO's entry - all the links are either dead or link to other platform versions: so this entry and a couple more planned will hopefully address this error. Boyflea (talk) 06:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Keep per the sources I provided above. North America1000 08:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources provided by on the talk page (and copied here by Northamerica1000) provide significant coverage of the subject. The Pocket Gamer article provides an extensive review of the game and the Gamespot article provides a detailed description of the game. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Aquastax to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 04:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi again, thanks for the progress report. Let me know of the outcome as all of this helps me understand how best to post content to Wikipedia for the future. Thanks again for the interest. Boyflea (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2016 (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.