Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ESPN MLS ExtraTime 2002


 * 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

ESPN MLS ExtraTime 2002

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't confirm notability Boleyn (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Snow keep Sources listed in the references include links to reviews on GameSpot and IGN, as well as to a few magazine reviews. Passes the GNG. Someoneanother 20:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 11:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 11:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 11:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - a few magazine review does not confer notability per WP:GNG; we need in-depth coverage in multiple, reliable third-party sources - which this does not have. PS the call for a 'snow keep' with the first !vote is hilarious. GiantSnowman 12:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Gamespot review, IGN review PLUS magazine sources were already linked to when it was nominated. This should not have been nominated for deletion, it should be snow kept, you're easily amused. Someoneanother 15:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest you actually read WP:SNOW. GiantSnowman 15:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * He probably meant "Speedy", not "Snow". Sub that in, and everything else he says makes complete sense. Sergecross73   msg me   15:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "we need in-depth coverage in multiple, reliable third-party sources" This is precisely what reviews are. If you take all the "in-depth coverage in multiple, reliable third-party sources" and lump it into a big "invalid" category, then of course you won't find any. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a truism to say that " does not confer notability". The word "confer" means "bestow", and notability is not bestowed.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems to pass WP:VG/RS and WP:GNG in my opinion, much more could be written in reception as that is an important part of notability when it comes to computer games. Govvy (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Meets the GNG. No policy or guideline was cited as a reason to delete. Seems like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How is this eligible for speedy keep? GiantSnowman 19:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Critical reviews in gaming sites have traditionally been sufficient to meet WP:N and there has been several AFD's where a video game article has been kept due to reviews from notable gaming sites. That said there is work that needs to be done, the reception section needs to integrate what was said in the reviews instead of simply being a list of the reviews.--174.93.160.57 (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per the Reviews given and magazine sources. I'd recommend Bolyn following through on WP:BEFORE and/or looking up on what are considered reliable sources for video game articles, as there have been a number of these I've seen now that have the sources to be kept... Sergecross73   msg me   20:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - All references are reliable per WP:VG/S.  Zappa  O  Mati   23:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets GNG. The reviews make the videogame notable. Jucchan (talk) 02:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Snow keep As per above.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2013 (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.