A Date with Death: I am reasonably certain this game fails WP:GNG , with the only two reliable sources with significant coverage being PC Gamer and Siliconera, with Siliconera being the only real review.  GameGrin/Noisy Pixel are considered unreliable by WP:VG/S and the reliability of The Boss Rush Network seems doubtful.  Obviously it's not a commentary on the quality of the game, it's simply objectively stating it is not notable enough for a page.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 07:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 07:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Firstly, I believe the Template:Notability tag should have been applied to the article rather than outright proposed deletion.  Secondly, WP:HELPAFD states, “On Wikipedia, the general inclusion threshold is whether the subject is notable enough for at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source .  “ These guidelines are met here.  ThanatosApprentice ( talk ) 22:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I don't consider PC Gamer as significant coverage since it mostly quotes user reviews and the developer, and has very little of the writer's own commentary.  Siliconera is reliable and SIGCOV but 1 article is not enough to meet GNG.  -- Mika1h ( talk ) 13:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I totally agree with ThanatosApprentice's first sentence, the template could've been put up.  I don't get what the nom means by WP:BITE ing a "new editor" as the creator of the article seems pretty experienced.  The PC Gamer article and Siliconera articles are pretty reliable, the others... not so much.  The article doesn't meet WP:GNG .  The plot section is completely WP:UGC .  MK at your service.  15:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Placing a notability tag on a new article after a due WP:BEFORE is just deferring the issue.  And the editor is rather experienced like you point out, so they know moving to mainspace might result in AFD (Generally I think if they may like to continue working on it, re-draftify and insist submitting to AFC).  IgelRM ( talk ) 23:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'll admit that the sources could have been a little beefier, but I still think there's enough here that full-on deletion wouldn't be warranted.  I'd instead suggest applying the Template:Notability tag for the time being.  Regarding MK's last comment, WP:UGC refers to sourcing things like blogs and forums, which I did not do.  ThanatosApprentice ( talk ) 19:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I believed that tagging it wouldn't really be able to change anything; from a detailed search I couldn't find more sources.  Obviously, if you know of any better ones that exist, make them be known.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 21:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redraftify If this article's deletion is completely unavoidable, I'd at least like to request that it be moved back into the draft namespace so I can continue bringing it up the standard if it receives more significant coverage.  ThanatosApprentice ( talk ) 18:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You are best off saving the article locally; such as in a txt file of some kind; drafts are for articles that have already been proven notable and they will be deleted after a certain period of time if not published.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 19:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If no new significant coverage surfaces within that timeframe, I will accept the consequences.  ThanatosApprentice ( talk ) 23:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any more support for draftification.  We could use a few more participants here.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  The title has sufficient coverage for general notability, independently from whether or not it it was pushed out of draft space early.  Cortador ( talk ) 13:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : PC Gamer and Silicon Era are fine for sources, Silicon Era is a bit lighter on coverage, but with everything else present, article is ok.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:43, 30 June 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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus