Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astroneer


 * 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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000  ( talk,  contribs ) 20:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Astroneer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of meeting WP:GNG. No independent sources Prevan (talk) 05:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. A cursory search for the game in the video game reliable sources custom Google search (or honestly, even a regular Google search) shows at least a dozen independent sources--more than sufficient and with enough dedicated depth for the GNG. czar  06:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I withdraw the nomination based on Czar's research.
 * Speedy Keep I may be biased because this is my article, but this article does meet the GNG. The game has a significant hype following it. A simple Google search will show a large variety of media outlets reporting on it. As for references, I can't always add them because of time constraints. I still go to school, so a lot of websites are blocked, including the website for the game and Reddit. When I find sites that I CAN add, I often have no time because I still have to learn. I'll get the references done, but I do believe the article meets the GNG because of how notable it is in the gaming community, and the hype about it. (Edit: I should be able to expand the article and add most citations over the Thanksgiving holiday) UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 11:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * First thing of all, you don't own articles. Second, the article is in such terrible shape, that why it was nominated for deletion in the first place. Please read our guidelines on what sources is appropriate and what isn't. Prevan (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's in poor shape. I'm fine with sending it to draftspace, but still don't see the case for deletion. czar  19:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep The article clearly meets GNG. The poor shape is irrelevant as AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 19:59, 21 November 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.