Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MTV Music Generator 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. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

MTV Music Generator 2

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Not enough coverage for a full article. Perhaps there could be an article on the whole "Music" series of games, but even then, it would need more information than what this article currently includes. Zerbu Talk 03:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  Zerbu  Talk 03:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Definitely seems to pass GNG, plenty of coverage on article. Waxworker (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep: Being a stub isn't a good enough reason to delete something clearly notable. Why? I Ask (talk) 09:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - no valid deletion rationale given, and there's currently countless dedicated reliable sources in the article. Feel free to start a merge discussion or something if you wish to pursue merging to the original or something, but you don't need AFD for that. Sergecross73   msg me  15:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree with all of you. There's no need for an "Article for Deletion" template.
 * Angeldeb82 (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep the sources are clearly there to meet WP:GNG. No one has bothered to summarize them yet. That could be resolved with a small amount of work. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, being a stub doesn't mean it should be deleted. Passes WP:GNG as it is covered in multiple independent reliable sources.  Schminnte (talk • contribs) 00:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I added some more prose for most of the reviewers. That should give the article some good reason to be a keeper. Angeldeb82 (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'd say per WP:HEY since it's been expanded, but even the version that was nominated for deletion didn't warrant it. At any rate it's been expanded so the rationale that there's "not enough coverage for a full article" seems unlikely. The article very easily meets WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep (possibly WP:SNOW keep). Thanks to User:Angeldeb82 for the expansion, there are sixteen reviews from Metacritic, including from Gamespot, IGN, GamePro, Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine, and Electronic Gaming Monthly. WP:GNG is clearly passed from those reviews, which are reliable, independent, and constitute of significant coverage. The rationale Not enough coverage for a full article appears to be no longer the case given the significant expansion, and this article falls under a case of WP:NOMERGE.  VickKiang  (talk)  05:41, 5 January 2023 (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.