Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The New Satan Sam


 * 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.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The New Satan Sam

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable game with no reliable, non-trivial sources to support notability. Andre (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's a third party review. Both the review and the user reviews at the download site indicate that the game is high quality, which matters only in that a high quality game is more likely to have staying power and thus long-term notability. The article is well done too. Herostratus 20:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 13:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * clearly a keep very well written & well linked. No reason to get rid of this. Barsportsunlimited 14:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 *  Delete  No sources to demonstrate notability, online 'review' is an abysmal 2 paragraph blog entry which says "this exists". I'm not sure what the Daily Click site is there for, it neither establishes notability or gives any details for a citation in the article. searching on google with the criteria " "The New Satan Sam" Review" yields nothing but download sites that I can see. QuagmireDog 14:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep After looking again, I'd missed the 'media' section, instead looking at the external-link/cites and the external links at the end of the article. Game Hippo is a download/funnel site, and I'd suggest removing it from the article altogether. The Gamespy article featuring the game is a hell of a lot stronger, that's just what's needed, but ideally there'd be more. Then there's the mentions on teletext etc. which I'll assume good faith about. The text is neither neutral or formal enough, but it can be editted. With some proper referencing and a quick nip and tuck, this could be a nice little start-class article. QuagmireDog 15:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up per Barsportsunlimited. Notability is there, just could be written better to me.--Whsitchy 03:34, 27 May 2007 (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.