Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Need For Madness (2nd nomination)

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 soft delete. Soft, because there are an awful lot of ghits for this one and it should be speedy undeleted if anyone can find some decent references amongst them. Spinning Spark 20:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need For Madness

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

No reliable sources seem to exist for this game. I previously nominated this for deletion, in which it was deleted, but now it's back. Renominating this for AfD since the article's content is new and thus G4 doesn't apply. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:15, 24 October 2012 (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) 01:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a computer game - check. Is it notable? I don't see how. PK T(alk) 13:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google News and Google Books provided nothing useful and it appears that only unreliable sources such as videos exist. There isn't anything to establish an appropriate article at this time. SwisterTwister talk 02:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant independent, reliable sources. Obvious delete. --Bejnar (talk) 06:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable; there's thousands, if not millions, of flash games out there, and there appears to be no reason that this particular one deserves an article. Furthermore, I'd say just go ahead and give it a soft deletion if there's still no consensus in another week. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 08:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So far it seems that there is nothing but consensus, everyone seems to agree that deletion is appropriate. --Bejnar (talk) 10:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true. I meant, more precisely, consensus vis-à-vis WP:QUORUM. Just because this article's been relisted so many times. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 10:20, 15 November 2012 (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.