Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republia times

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. joe decker ^talk 07:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Republia times[edit]

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

Non-notable flash game. Mackensen (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable game with insignificant coverage in RS. Meatsgains (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not seeing any real coverage. NickCT (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick Google search showed several reliable sources reporting on the game, and it was nominated for the Games for Change Awards. I've expanded the article quite a bit and looks a lot better now. Oh, and I also moved it to the actual title The Republia Times. --Soetermans. T / C 10:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as now that reliable sources have been added to the article on this game, I think WP:GNG is passed.Atlantic306 (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mackensen:, @Meatsgains: and @NickCT:, I was wondering if you still feel the same way since my edits. --Soetermans. T / C 09:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm still unsure about the breadth of coverage, but I wouldn't have nominated the current version of the article. Mackensen (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I guess this is the best the article can achieve... I think redirecting to Papers, Please is not appropriate either. Maybe recreate Lucas Pope? Using the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine, it looks like there's more information about the person. --Soetermans. T / C 15:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging me. The recent expansion and addition of RS definitely improved the quality of the page. I struck through my previous vote and now say weak keep. Meatsgains (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because it's sourced well and is well written. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now RSs have been added. Meets GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:31, 23 February 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.