Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ReRave


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

ReRave

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

Weak notability; Kotaku is the only reliable source I'm seeing here, and even that source has questionable WP:SIGCOV. Prod disputed by recently created user with similar edits to article creator. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC) Delete the only other coverage I can find is in TV Tropes, which is a non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 30.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 15:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as a non-notable video game failing WP:GNG with insufficient reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. Kotaku coverage is barely in-depth - I can't tell if the "reviewer" actually ever played the game past the access unlock. Article author is socking, so no real hope here. — HELL KNOWZ ∣ TALK 13:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 15:02, 5 February 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.