Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godville

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. The article will need significant expansion from the sources, with inline citations where appropriate. Will tag as such. (non-admin closure) Nordic Nightfury 11:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Godville[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. ubiquity (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was a PROD I contested. There are sources at toucharcade 1, toucharcade 2, toucharcade 3, toucharcade 4, toucharcade 5, destructoid 1, destructoid 2, gamesradar, 148apps, The New York Times (a rarity for video gaming!). These are all evaluated as reliable sources, so, keep. --Izno (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per sourcing provided by Izno. Even if that was deemed somehow "not enough", the fact that it received dedicated coverage from the New York Times is probably a good indicator that there's more out there as well - that's pretty high level sourcing for a video game. I'd be open to discussing a redirect considering how little content is present in the article, but I'm not aware of any targets that would make sense... Sergecross73 msg me 14:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the sourcing found, as well as a few more hits including Kotaku, TechnologyTell, and even a Russian RS, using the list maintained at WP:VG/RS. -- ferret (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those were passing mentions. I didn't check the Russian RSs. --Izno (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2016 (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.