Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dad 'n Me


 * 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   delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Dad 'n Me

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

No references or indication of independent coverage to verify notability. Joel Why? talk  13:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 13:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete. NN. No sources. One game among zillions. -- Alexf(talk) 13:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't know if we can justify a speedy under any of the current criteria, and I don't see anything here to warrant IAR speedy. No harm in letting it live for a few more days. Gigs (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Once again, I find myself astounded to see editors sending articles straight to AfD with no contested PROD in the history; why go to the lenghtier, more cumbersome procedure when a simpler, more evident one exists?  Salvidrim!   18:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - No sources that help it meet the WP:GNG... Sergecross73   msg me   19:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable web game. My argument has pretty much already been stated. Cyan  Gardevoir  (used EDIT!) 05:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. That said, if the game does get some coverage an article might end up being worthwhile. But this ain't that article. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:35, 12 June 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.