Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High School Drama!


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

High School Drama!

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

References are non-reliable or come from game itself. Page seems to be essentially promotion for the game. No assertion of notability at all. FuriouslySerene (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete promotional advertisement. Curro2 (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Promotion. Matt294069 is coming  02:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Week Keep' per these sources. Looks like an advertisement, but the citations, which some of them including the magazine review and the award site do look reliable to me, and a google search that was able to pick up a couple of reliable sources mainly reviewing this game show that this problem could easily be fixed without deletion. 和DITOR  E tails 02:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The Wired article is solid but the other doesn't seem like a reliable source to me. I didn't find anything else when I searched so I still don't think this is notable. FuriouslySerene (talk) 04:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 03:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  05:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Game Trade Mag and Wired article is good, Game Trade Mag sounds good, but together not sufficient for significant coverage. (Don't see an editorial policy at RPGnet.) If there was a third review, I'd reconsider. czar  06:25, 29 January 2016 (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.