Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DUST 514

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The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DUST 514

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

Contested PROD. PROD reason was: WP:NN future product PROD-2 reason was: WP:CRYSTAL: Unreleased product. Come back when game is released and duly covered. Contesting reason was: There will be great interest in this game. deleting this stub is premature.

Delete per my PROD-2. The game is not yet notable. Also, the only two references in the article at this time are the developer company's press release and trailer. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy withdraw, as the article has been cleaned up and duly sourced over the past few days. Well done all! --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I just did a decent cleanup and added some reliable sources in there. It's big enough for a stub that can be expanded when more information comes in. You could possibly merge to EVE Online, but I personally think that would be a waste of time at this point, especially when more information comes in. MuZemike 23:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It appears sufficiently sourced, and as more info is released it would only be recreated. I'd say the press about it from multiple sources affirms notability. -- Commdor {Talk} 03:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For reasons already stated here, and that more information will be released soon for additional sourcing. Seriphyn (talk) 10:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. Since the nomination, the article has been given sources to verify information about it and establish it's notability, and thus the original concerns that resulted in it being brought here have been addressed. --Taelus (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2009 (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.