Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaia Saver (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Gaia Saver
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lacks any indication of importance, and none of the cited sources provide significant coverage or otherwise hint at notability. Previous AfD is just painful to read, with the keep votes being textbook examples of WP:But there must be sources! and WP: Other stuff exists, colored with unhelpful ranting (e.g. "I just think it's totally unfair deleting it just because someone thinks it should be deleted"). Suffice to say I found nothing in there to make me doubt that this article should be deleted, and the state of the article has not improved in the least in the five years since it was last brought to AfD. Martin IIIa (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   17:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   17:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete None of the sources in the article are strong enough to establish notability and I see nothing to contradict the nominators assessment about a lack of reliable sources. Finally, I think the first AFD should be disregarded since the arguements were weak and there was enough time for interested parties to find sources between that AFD and this one.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 00:18, 28 April 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.