Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberts Rally IV


 * 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. Kevin (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Roberts Rally IV

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Nothing distinguishes it from the 100's of other pong console clones from the period. We don't support articles on Wikipedia simply because an item exists  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There's a ton of these, and this one does not appear remarkable in any way. Reach Out to the Truth 00:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment It's existence seems to be fairly well-documented though, including in some books. Maybe a List of Pong clones could be created? SharkD   Talk  06:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not really a documentation of notability. Just as with the pong-story link, it's simply listed in a large listing of pong consoles, including the (non-usable) database site.  Again, that doesn't make it any more notable than the 100's of other pong consoles that were on the market.  Certainly not for it's own article. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 07:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 17:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * How many times does this have to be relisted? You've got two votes for delete and zero for keep. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, doesn't show any in-depth coverage, which is required for notability. Nyttend (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Quite ridiculous that this was relisted twice. I find it funny that two out of thousands of users is considered not enough consensus, but if you get it up to six or so out of thousands of users you suddenly have a more valuable opinion. Indrian (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2009 (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.