Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roboquest

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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roboquest

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Unfortunately fails WP:GNG. Lack of notability indicated by no WP:VG/S review sources, either in the article or doing a WP:BEFORE, which only yielded mention in one WP:OFFLINE source from the Dutch magazine Gameplay. Reviews for two situational sources: TechRaptor and Gaming Age, although source discussions for neither seem particularly positive and both authors, whilst having a few reviews under their belt, have no experience or presence outside writing for their respective websites. Absent more reliable sources being found, seems like coverage is mostly confined to primary sources, non-reliable indie blogs and game guide type articles. Mindful this is a little closer to borderline than usual so welcome thoughts. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Honestly, expected to !vote the other way before digging in here. I did find an in-depth preview article at Jeux Video ([1]), a reliable French video game website which is listed on WP:VG/RS, along with a completely random but seemingly WP:RS review from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette ([2]). These articles combined with the TechRaptor and Gaming Age hits put it over the edge into keep category for me. Nomader (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NONENG comes through! I'll keep open for a second opinion but that's looking better. Shame about the WP:NEXIST on Gameplay but good find on the Arkansas paper, for whatever use it is, it is obviously significant coverage. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JV, Gameplay, the Inven source from the article, and the smattering of other publications. I guess the English-language publications just missed this one, considering the breadth of other coverage. ~ A412 ^talk! 02:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator withdraw on the basis that the found sources have since illustrated that notability has been comfortably met, supported by participants, making the need for a discussion moot. thanks to @Nomader:. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 02:20, 14 April 2024 (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.