Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NotGTAV


 * 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) Kraxler (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

NotGTAV

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable video game fails WP:GNG, almost all the references are just places where you can purchase the game, the developers website, or minor reviews some of which are from questionable sources. -War wizard90 (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems notable:    . Sam Walton (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak delete . Eh, the game was picked up by a few of the vetted video game sources, but they're mostly short blurbs. Longest articles are Kotaku (its follow-up) and RPS, but they're just average coverage. There aren't any formal reviews or enough coverage to make this topic particularly noteworthy. So it fails in breadth for significant coverage. – czar   18:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as it's received coverage, even if only minor.  Ana  r  chyte   06:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that WP:GNG explicitly states that minor coverage is not sufficient. It needs to be "significant" coverage, not "minor" or trivial coverage. This article does not inherit notability from the Grand Theft Auto IV game it is spoofing. The only reason it's received any coverage is because the gameplay is so poor and proceeds are going to a charitable cause. All of that is fine and dandy, but this doesn't have the coverage to pass WP:GNG, at the very least it's a case of WP:TOOSOON. -War wizard90 (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless of its quality or reasons its getting coverage, it is getting coverage, and that's what matters - the reasons why do not. Sergecross73   msg me  14:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - per Sam Walton's sources. They are sources that are not trivial, passing mentions, but rather, articles focused entirely on the subject. Each article is a few paragraphs long as well. To me, that satisfies significant coverage. Its not a home run, sure, but it limps by the standard. Sergecross73   msg me  14:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - spoof of a game but still a game. no reason for it to be deleted. Thursby16 (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2015 (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.