Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sambunot


 * 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. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sambunot

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I see no notice of notability Cynof  G  avuf 11:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this game. Joe Chill (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - I can't find significant coverage either. Just a few forum discussion thingies. A Youtube video or two. The source at the bottom swayed me a bit, but I don't know if that's enough to keep it, Lord Spongefrog,  (I am the Czar of all Russias!)  13:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  —Chris Johnson (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.  —Chris Johnson (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The book cited in the article has several pages of coverage, and the Google Books search linked at the top of this discussion shows that this game has coverage in plenty more books. In particular it was selected as one of 400 games from the whole world to be included in this book. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, from what I can find from looking up google, there is coverage, but nothing significant or in depth that I can find, mostly passing mention, however, there is sufficient amount of passing mention to meet WP:NN. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Phil. Looks like plenty of sources cover this.  I'd honestly suggest the right organization would be to discuss this in the context of similar games from the Philippines.  But that's an editorial call and this topic meets our policies and guidelines for a standalone article.  Hobit (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, there are a dozen books or so that cover this (see the books link above) The one linked to by Phil is non-trivial coverage.  I'm not sure on the rest, but the one cited in the article appears to span 3 pages, so it probably is non-trivial.  Looks like we meet WP:N.  Hobit (talk) 21:31, 13 November 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.