Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue's Birthday Adventure


 * 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. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 00:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Blue's Birthday Adventure

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-referenced, non-notable game. Endorsed PROD declined by page creator. GregJackP  Boomer!   00:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 *  Delete  Really can't be expanded; a basic point-and-click-to-find-the-objects game which is par for the course for a kid's learning game, and reads like a book/videogame report stating the obvious.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 06:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Not true at all. The article was quickly expanded by 3 paragraphs and 3 reliable sources since the above statement. Sergecross73   msg me   23:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Um, I see 3 reliable sources in it now..? Sergecross73   msg me   21:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Switch to Keep Article expanded enough with sourcing since rationale was added.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Major reliable sources that have been added to the article, such as the NY Times, clearly establish notability. Seems like the nominator did not follow through on WP:BEFORE... Sergecross73   msg me   23:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep sources to appear in the article now that would seem to meet WP:N (the NYT for example has a short review). Hobit (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sergecross73's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sergecross73.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  23:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep a search of LexisNexis shows that this was a best-selling product that received reviews in several top publications.GabrielF (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2012 (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.