Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sneeze (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. Tone 18:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Sneeze (game)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No assertion of notability Xenocide  Talk undefined Contributions  21:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Yes it is indeed notable. Reliable sources are already provided, and the article thereby meets WP:GNG. Many more do exist. Just because these are from foreign papers does not mean they are not RS. There is much more that can be written about this too. Being a stub does not make an article not worthy of inclusion. As for nom's argument, see WP:JNN. Xyz7890 (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Keep Not only does it have multiple sources, these are excellent articles on the subject. I don't see any OR here, but having some OR is not grounds for deleting an entire article. Some of the information may be derived from the subject itself. Per WP: PRIMARY, this is permitted for some information in an article with outside sources. Pink cloudy sky (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article is mostly OR, and the only sourcing appears to be a single wire service article that has appeared in different papers with slightly different editing (possibly translation/retranslation effects). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep if the NYT and Times of India chose to cover it, it's notable. Meets WP:N quite easily. Hobit (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep notability established with reliable sources in the original version. Was the ONE MINUTE between the original article posting and the nomination for deletion really enough time for the nominator to consider the sources and notability?  Why was the WP:Before policy ignored before nominating this article for deletion?Math.geek3.1415926 (talk) 03:40, 25 September 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.