Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Bradman Cricket 17

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don Bradman Cricket 17[edit]

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

Reads like an ad for this game. » Shadowowl | talk 19:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly passes WP:GNG. What promotional problems exist (I'm not seeing much) can be fixed in the article without deleting. SportingFlyer talk 05:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has four reliable sources reviews at metacritic so passes WP:GNG, promotion can be edited out, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I did a little cleanup of the article for removing the advertising words, and tense, but even without any of these changes, the article should not be deleted, it clearly passes WP:GNG Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes GNG. AfD is not the way to fix notable articles containing promotional language. Sellyme^Talk 16:42, 27 May 2018 (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.