Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quadradius (2nd nomination)


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Quadradius
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Game that does not satisfy game notability, software notability, or general notability. Deleted after discussion in 2007; see Articles for deletion/Quadradius. Appears to be the same as is described in the AFD, and so a possible candidate for G4, but nominated for AFD instead. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Similar to the previous AfD, I'm not seeing the notability here.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not enough reviews/awards/coverage to warrant an entry. Fails GNG and such. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; just like last time. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 10:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete a search brought up only one review, from Jay is Games, which WP:VG/RS says cannot be used to demonstrate notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - This game does not have any form of online presence other than this article. -- KindCowboy69 ☮ 06:45 PM January 6, 2021 18:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per the foregone comments. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 09:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC) --- Double-vote struck  Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;
 * Weak Keep - This was on WP:VG/R for a while and I provided sources to support its listing at WPVG/R because I believe this topic passes the GNG threshold. It is an award-winning game (GDC's Independent Games Festival , and Jay Is Games Yearly Best Of  ) and was included as a landmark title in one of the the video game's industry most solid reference guide, 1001 Video Games You Must Play Before You Die -- there is an argument to be made that all the games listed within pass GNG, and indeed they're basically all bluelinks, with the few redlinks simply awaiting creation on WPVG/R.  Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  16:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To discuss Salvidrim!'s sources.
 * Keep - as stated above. I am the article creator Sheila1988 (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   14:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete In response to relisting and Salv's week keep sourcing: The IDF "Gleemie" award is a non-notable award done as part of a publicity collaboration with Wizards of the Coast for their new website, Gleemax. The winner was not chosen by IDF judges or organizers, but WoTC. It was not the winner, but 3rd place. This award was never done again, it was a one time stunt. Gleemax itself barely lasted a year before shutdown. Secondly, Jayisgaming was a user voted award, and nothing notable. Finally, 1001 Video Games You Must Play Before You Die. This source is under active discussion at WP:VG/RS, where I offered the following paraphrased opinion: The book is reliable, but whether it represents anything towards GNG depends entirely on the substance included about the game in the book. Some of the entries range from full pages, to simple a sentence or two. Unfortunately, I cannot verify how much the book gives to the game, but the simple listing in the book is not enough. Even if it was one of the more heavily covered entries, that one be just one single in-depth source. -- ferret (talk) 03:24, 12 January 2021 (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.