Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auto Destruct


 * 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Auto Destruct

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lack of content & References With Thanks - Lee Vilenski(talk) 12:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , this article has no references and has not content. It fails WP:GNG. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing by speedy you would mean CSD A7, but there is no A7 for video games. -- ferret (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that now. I remove my recommendation Randomeditor1000 (talk) 12:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't believe WP:BEFORE was done. Lack of content and references is not a valid deletion rationale. The article contains one reference as a source already. I've added two more reviews to the talk page, as well as a link to GameRankings which shows there were 5-6 print magazines who issued reviews for the game. As an older game, online sourcing is harder to find, but I believe WP:GNG is met. -- ferret (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Topic has reviews from IGN, GameSpot, AllGame, GamePro, GameZone. A number of print publications including Electronic Gaming Monthly, Official PlayStation Magazine, Video Games, Mega Fun and Player One also published reviews. Topic is notable and meets the criteria at WP:GNG. The article's current lack of content and sources does not imply that they don't exist. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - per argument and sources of above two keep stances. Sergecross73   msg me  00:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep but mark as stub: It will probably be fixed, but this article, while I think it should survive, needs a lot more content. TomBarker23 (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's already marked as stub. -- ferret (talk) 21:41, 19 October 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.