Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/President (video game)


 * 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. ✗ plicit  00:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

President (video game)

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

The article has only been sourced to databases since its creation in January and lots remains unsourced. One sources says that there have been four magazine reviews, but I'm not sure whether that information is reliable and whether any of these reviews were substantial. I have not been able to locate coverage in an online search. I would propose to draftify until better sourcing is produced, but the article is over 90 days old and it therefore needs a consensus decision. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Two print review archives added to talk page refideas. -- ferret (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Four more print review archives added to the talk page refideas. -- ferret (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Per WP:NEXIST and WP:RUSHDELETE. The game is obviously notable and despite it being merely a stub, that is not grounds for removing it or forcing people to work on it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The page was sourced in a way that raised doubts over the game's notability. When a page in the mainspace has such sourcing problems, I don't see the problem with forcing action. I was hoping that an AfD would either yield sources that I didn't find (which has happened) or determine that the subject was non-notable. I also do not understand why RUSHDELETE would apply here since I was proposing to draftify. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Draftifying is essentially soft deletion if nobody bothers to work on it in the ensuing time, and the draft is removed for inactivity. Generally, I only really support it if the article is completely unsourced. Even if it's a viable stub there is no reason to do so, as you are just kicking the can down the road to other editors who are busy making their own articles. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I see your point about the draftificaiton: it can amount to a soft deletion if the the editor isn't around or doesn't improve the draft. Regardless, I apologise for taking up people's time, but decisions have to be taken when patrolling new pages and I was on the fence with this one. I couldn't move the page to draft, but I couldn't approve the page either without evidence of better sourcing. I thought bringing it to AfD would be the most consensus oriented/potentially constructive way forward. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Modussiccandi 2 of these sources were found via Mobygames (Itself unreliable, but a good way to find reviews that are). The other 4 were found through one of the sources already in the article that listed them all. -- ferret (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep: In light of the new sources surfaced, which meet GNG by my standards. DocFreeman24 (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep While I found six print publications about the game, several of them are very short 2-3 paragraph snap reviews. It's unlikely much more sourcing exists than this. I think it just barely gets by. -- ferret (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep due to the sources found. A few short reviews is enough, but hopefully more sources can be found. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2022 (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.