Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TRAZ


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 06:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

TRAZ

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

Nominating the article due to lack of sources available, which goes against the notability guidelines. Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 20:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be beneficial if the sources discovered during this discussion were assessed for reliability and independence and, if found acceptable, were added to the article under discussion. There seems to be some doubt that they are independent reviews and not just advertising or listing. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Plenty of reviews according to MobyGames. + found three more sources via Newspapers.com, ,  Timur9008 (talk) 06:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As per SIGCOV, I see it as cutting it very close with the sources. Also, the sources provided appear to be ADVERTS )note them all listing prices, and not reviewing, but exclusively viewing the subject in a positive light). Unfortunately, the organization my IP is attached to has blocked Mobygames, but I am not a deletionist and do, in fact, want the article to stay up. Best regards, Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 19:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:NEXIST, current state of the article is irrelevant. Clearly meets WP:GNG with reviews listed at MobyGames. More reviews (and a preview) can be found listed at Spectrum Computing: --Mika1h (talk) 08:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read the above reply. Cheers, Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 14:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Definitely meets GNG due to the reviews listed on Mobygames/Spectrumcomputing. Waxworker (talk) 05:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * See reply to @Timur9008. Best regards, Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 14:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak Keep.There is a full page review from The Games Machine, which used to be a magazine in English before it shut down in 1990 and an Italian version opened, and it is considered reliable by here. There is another review from the once very long running Computer and Video Games, which discussions here also consider reliable. This source dedicates half of Page 14 and half of Page 15 to this video game, so I would argue it is SIGCOV. Finally, the Cambridge News article linked to above appears to be a reliable newspaper and the entry seems to be a review (not a promotional advertisement) that is borderline SIGCOV. Some of the other sources linked above or I found in my search are situationally/questionably reliable or fails SIGCOV, but there is just enough for a GNG pass IMO.  VickKiang  (talk)  07:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep editors above have found RS. Lightburst (talk) 01:34, 31 October 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.