Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aztez

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) Esquivalience ^t 04:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aztez

Aztez (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)

Delete per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Indie video game by non-notable developer team originally scheduled to be released in 2014, pushed back to 2015, with no date specified in any WP:RS. ― Padenton|✉   18:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   18:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   18:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Significant coverage across multiple reliable, independent sources as vetted at WP:VG/RS (?):

There's plenty more too. As for crystal, the game is clearly in production and has had coverage across several years. Missing one's expected release date is not grounds for deletion. Secondary source news outlets clearly care about the product. czar ⨹ 19:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: Passing WP:GNG does not guarantee notability, or I would not have wasted my time nominating this. Everything you provided above gives it 'presumed notability', and per WP:GNG "Presumed means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not", and it does violate WP:WWIN because it violates WP:NOTCRYSTAL as stated in the nomination. ― Padenton|✉   19:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the vague wave. I think I've cited enough sources to show that interest is sustained and that it isn't an article about predictions, rumors, or speculation. czar ⨹ 19:56, 3 May 2015 (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) 02:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Yes, it's unreleased and doesn't have a scheduled date, but Czar has shown that there's considerable interest in this game from a number of reliable sources. As such, it is completely fine to have an article. Even if the game never is produced, the interest would make it vaporware of interest to keep an article on it. --MASEM (t) 02:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as Czar has demonstrated, the game has received enough coverage to justify keeping this article. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 05:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sufficient amount of sources and coverage for its own article on Wikipedia. Pretty notable judging from them too. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Draft until the game is released and there are independent in depth reviews and other sources . Stuartyeates (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2015 (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.