Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiny Toon Adventures: Defenders of the Universe


 * 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. (non-admin closure) B  music  ian  06:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Tiny Toon Adventures: Defenders of the Universe

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A proposed deletion of this article was contested with a list of sources placed on the article's talk page. While this list has five entries, they all come from IGN except the first one, which is from Gamespot. There are three sources provided on the article already, but the first is a primary source, the second is not reliable, and the third is (again) Gamespot, leaving only two reliable sources for this article. A search for more reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This unreleased video game fails Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Neelix (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The IGN sources are dated 2001, 2004 and 2008. They're by different authors (2 by 'IGN staff', the other two by different named authors); they also approach the game from 2 angles, pre-release and cancelled. That being the case I don't believe they should count as a single source. On top of that there's another squirt of info from allgame here which verifies plot and gameplay details. There's also a substantial piece here on Computer and Video Games. That's without any magazine sources. That goes way over the notability bar to me. Someoneanother 00:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You beat me to it, thanks! Someoneanother 00:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - I'm the one that contested the PROD and found the sources. Gamespot is reliable for in-house published articles, which this is. That article, in addition to the first and fourth IGN articles, establishes clear notability - it is very significant coverage in reliable, independant sources.   Salvidrim!   01:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Gamespot, IGN, CVG, and Allgame are all reliable sources, and all have articles dedicated to the game. Definitely qualifies as significant coverage and satisfies WP:GNG. Sergecross73   msg me   01:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per provided reliable sources, the nom lacks of WP:BEFORE. Cavarrone (talk) 07:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't even think it's a lack of research before the nom, the sources were already found, as the nom points out. :)  Salvidrim!   07:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're true, but considering the nominator wasn't satisfied with the actual coverage of the article (that however appears good) a quick search would have show at least the Allgame and CVG sources. Cavarrone (talk) 07:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I hadn't found the CVG one, but I believed (and still do) that the Allgame source doesn't establish notability. It seems more of a database entry-type than significant coverage to me.  Salvidrim!   08:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Here the CVG piece, provided by Someone. Cavarrone (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes yes, I saw it. I just meant I hadn't found it in my original search. :)  Salvidrim!   08:27, 16 February 2012 (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.