Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gang Garrison 2


 * 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. –Juliancolton Talk  ·  Review  00:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Gang Garrison 2

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

Non-notable video game. Blog entries, even entries on notable blogs, are not enough to qualify for general notability under WP:N. Entry into a non-notable competition does not qualify for notability. Chardish (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 22:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: The Kotaku entry, at least, counts as a notable and reliable source. It could also have other sources that need to be found. It's also a very small game, so you can't expect as many sources as a commercial one.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What? I expect this game, like any other, to satisfy the general notability guideline. Small games don't require fewer sources because they're smaller - if they don't have enough non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources, they aren't notable and don't need articles. - Chardish (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Big Download is part of AOL and is geared towards games of this type, so the significant coverage from them is good. Slide in John Bardinelli's "A surprisingly faithful demake of Team Fortress 2" (Jay is Games) and Derek Yu's "GG 2.0 has more of everything – more options, more maps, more communication, and more explosions. Talking about it makes me want to go play another few rounds."  and this piece from 1up and there's a reception section with multiple commentators as well as a decent amount of coverage which confers notability IMO. The 1up source was posted 4 days after the article was created, having found it I've gone from wavering to convinced, so slap my thigh and call me Betty. Someoneanother 22:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Mention on PC World, not insignificant reception info on Games Radar. Someoneanother 22:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for sourcing, and yes, not only do those sources mention the game, but they do it in context of the contest, making the supposedly "non-notable competition" notable after all.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, the sources given are well done and trustworthy. Thus, making it notable enough for inclusion.  Marlith  (Talk)   00:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Keep" Bananaclasic (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * — Bananaclasic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * 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.