Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Duel (1985 video 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The Duel (1985 video game)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 14:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  czar  14:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as a non-notable video game failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. No meaningful hits in custom RS search. No entries for content in game listings (like MobyGames) or review aggregates (like Metacritic). No hits in contemporary video game magazines. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Commodore 64 games (A–M) or delete. If Lemon64 says it exists, then I trust them.  However, there doesn't seem to be any documentation about this anywhere online.  If someone can locate offline coverage, the article can be recreated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - Do remember that likely any coverage of the topic when it came out was in non-digital print media, possibly deflating the notability of the game.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There would normally be some indication of this in forums and at least a trace of some coverage in the MobyGames entry's section on criticism czar  22:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is fair enough. as it is I think I agree with the other editors here. There isn't any evidence of notability. Delete.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete at best for now as this could simply redirect but this is still questionable overall for improvements and notability. SwisterTwister   talk  22:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of notable sources. I'm all for recreating the article if sources are found (I cannot find any myself). ZettaComposer (talk) 12:58, 18 March 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.