Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corvette (game)


 * 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The result was   nomination withdrawn. An adequate number of sources that establish notability have been found. (non-admin closure)   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 21:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Corvette (game)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article, about a racing video game, does not indicate how it is notable enough to merit its own article. Although I would rather keep the article than see it deleted, I was unable to find sources that show its notability. If reliable secondary sources are found, I will hurriedly withdraw this nomination.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 02:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and dabify... with Corvette (pinball) and Vette! 76.66.198.171 (talk) 05:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - the article lacks sufficient information to ascertain what game this refers to. It might be this PS2 game, but there's no way to tell.  In any case the PS2 game is a budget title which does not appear to have garnered any reviews so delete in any case. -- Whpq (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - lloks to be enough in the way of reviews to clear the bar for notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I remember seeing this on X-Play a long time ago(it was jeered), so there's at least one notable reviewer who took notice of it. And yeah, it is that PS2 game.- Norse Am Legend (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Gamespot, TeamXbox, GameZone, MetaCritic. SharkD (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - the first thee reviews are fine, but the last from metacritic is really just a rehashed publisher's press release. Thanks for digging them up. -- Whpq (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The point of mentioning MetaCritic is that MetaCritic links to other reliable sources. SharkD (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Aye, scroll down past the publisher's summary and there's links to several other reviews. Reviews listed on Metacritic are usually reliable enough for FAC purposes, they should easily suffice here. -- Sabre (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, sources provided by SharkD might not be plentiful, but provide a suggestion that this subject is notable. -- Sabre (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a few more listed here. SharkD (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - There seem to be two versions of the game&mdash;one for the PS2/Xbox and one for GBA. The article needs to distinguish between the two, though they're both made by TDK Mediactive. SharkD (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Three reviews sounds good enough to me. Maybe later I can dig up something, if no one else does. Elm-39 (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2009 (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.