Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soldier of Fortune II: Double Helix


 * 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. I am early closing this as Keep under our snowball clause justified by Ignore all rules and saving everybody's time as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. You can argue that this could be speedy kept per WP:SK, "no arguments for deletion have been advanced and nobody else recommends deletion", since 's argument is in and by itself not a WP:N-based argument, cf. WP:PGL. Nom is asked to please read and follow WP:BEFORE. Thanks to for participation. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 21:00, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Soldier of Fortune II: Double Helix

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails Sources Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. /wiae  /tlk  19:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – Did you even try to look for sources? I took me five seconds to find 22 reviews at Metacritic including reviews from IGN, GameSpot, GameSpy, GamePro, Game Informer, PCGamer, G4TV, CGW, all of which are considered reliable video game sources. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Video game has been reviewed in numerous sources, including but not limited to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 and 9. As a result, the game meets the criteria set out in the WP:NVG essay and certainly meets WP:GNG. /wiae /tlk  19:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Links provided by clearly indicate notability: could do with some inline citations but AFDISNOTCLEANUP. —  crh 23   &thinsp;(Talk) 20:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Subject is clearly notable, just because it needs sources does not mean there aren't any to find. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:42, 14 May 2016 (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.