Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wall Street Kid
- 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. Killiondude (talk) 03:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Wall Street Kid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable video game. No sources, fails WP:GNG. Kirbanzo (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - so a couple of potential proper reviews as sources: Honest Gamers and Nintendo Complete. I've seen the former used as a review, but I don't actually know the status of the latter, and whether it was a proper critic doing the review. If both are fair, then, amazingly, the game is probably sufficiently notable. If not, then I'd be inclined, though not certain, to opt delete. Someone neutral know the answer? Nosebagbear (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - I found a review from the Electronic Gaming Monthly magazine, as seen here. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 20:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- Extremely brief review, would fail under WP:MENTION. Actual source would look reliable, just not substantial enough Nosebagbear (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Nosebagbear: The findings of Phediuk strengthen my stance of a Keep. I went ahead and added the reviews on the article. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 21:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- Extremely brief review, would fail under WP:MENTION. Actual source would look reliable, just not substantial enough Nosebagbear (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - In addition to the sources mentioned above, it also has a review on AllGame and the MobyGames review page for it also indicates a Game Informer retrospective review from their Dec 2007 issue. So there's demonstrable RS coverage from several sources. Phediuk (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Phediuk: Thank you very much for your findings! I added them to the article. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 21:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - Between the various reviews found this now has sufficient coverage Nosebagbear (talk) 08:13, 10 May 2018 (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.