Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/0-D Beat Drop

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. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

0-D Beat Drop

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no references here whatsoever showing notability--only databases known to publish material published by film creators or participants. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Game developed by Aksys Games and Arc System Works for Xbox Live Arcade. Article includes links to Xbox.com, MobyGames, and Metacritic attesting to its notability. The fact that the OP has twice referred to it as a "film" should call their motives into question.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 01:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please add sources so that you can prove that the article passes notability? Or a policy argument showing why it does? It would be extremely helpful to have that. Jeremy112233 (talk) 01:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited; also please comment on the argument, not the user making it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I read it, MoonMetropolis' statement meant "the nominator made this very basic error, so it's a case of egregious ignorance or bad faith". Either one is relevant: we really shouldn't give weight to a nomination that's badly in error, and bad faith is a good reason to close the AFD without making any decisions. Nyttend (talk) 05:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being listed on XBox.com, Metacritic, or MobyGames is not a sign of notability, though as noted, going through Metacritic reveals reviews from reliable sources to attest notability. --MASEM (t) 18:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Verifiability and notability are separate things. In that regard, nom is correct, links to databases don't established WP:N. However, the Metacritic shows multiple reviews from reliable sources that would lean towards notability, including IGN, the official Xbox Magazine, and X360 Magazine UK. The article needs some work and better sourcing, but it looks like the sources exist. -- ferret (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Being unreferenced is not a valid deletion reason. An admitted failure to follow the procedures of WP:BEFORE readers this, IMO a bad faith nomination which should quite possibly be WP:SNOW closed promptly. AfD should not be used as article cleanup. DES ^(talk) 21:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Bad faith nomination. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 00:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy Keep per improper deletion rationale of a NEW ARTICLE.[1] A lack of WP:BEFORE or wishing deletion because a notable topic needs work are not valid deletion rationales. In looking before opining I immediately found that this was reviewed by IGN NZGamer then I found that these reviews and others were all linked through Metacritic. We do not delete notable topics whose articles simply need work, and AFD is not intended to force cleanup. See WP:IMPERFECT, WP:WIP and WP:DEADLINE. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So... uhhh... can we close this please?--MoonMetropolis (talk) 07:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.