It was deleted due to failing WP:GNG, but now more sources are available. For example, Rock Paper Shotgun, Destructoid and PC Gamer. Also, one of the commenters said that the games will no longer be playable online. This is not true as it's playable on Steam and on Kongregate with the Ruffle flash player. Jannaultheal (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Recreation either as draft for AFC review or in article space subject to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Significant new information has come to light since the deletion that justifies undeleting this article about what we now know is a notable topic. It doesn't matter whether the new sources are included in it at the time of undeletion (not a BLP, the information is not going to be badly outdated et cetera). There is no need for anything else such as a procedural AfD.—Alalch E. 11:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After reading subsequent comments, I'd like to reiterate my view that this is undeletable to mainspace. Doing this entails overturning the AfD. It's not a judgement that the AfD was closed incorrectly at the time. That is better for page history continuity and attribution. Since notability is questioned even after these sources, a procedural AfD is in order. I am against DRV prescribing AfC. —Alalch E. 23:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No action needed, it's a five year old AfD. Jannaultheal is welcome to create a new article, which can go to AfD if folks feel notability hasn't changed. It would not be a G4 StarMississippi 14:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. I wouldn't consider 2 5-paragraph articles and a 1-paragraph mention in a listicle to meet WP:SIGCOV. Are there more sources? (I briefly used the WP:VG/RS custom Google searches but nothing jumped out at me.) Happy to change my !vote if significant coverage is out there. Woodroar (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify if there is an editor ready to work on it. The appellant has a grand total of 10 edits to their name, all of which are AfD or DRV related, which makes me worry they don't intend to follow through with actual content copyediting. (@Jannaultheal: is this your primary account?) I doubt the sources presented here are enough to meet SIGCOV, but as Star Mississippi said, we're not bound by the 2019 AfD, and can leave the decision about the new article to AfC or a future AfD. Owen×☎ 14:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close but allow recreation. The close at the time was solid, and this probably should go through the Draft/AFC process for the reasons mentioned above, but I don't think with the new sources anyone is going to be jumping for the G4 stick. Primefac (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What everyone else said. Deletions based on notability are always up for new information that demonstrates notability, which is the most common case of an old deletion discussion being disregarded when the reason for deletion no longer applies. New such information AFTER the date of the AfD is a great reason to change the outcome. Jclemens (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close I think this still could go to AfD if recreated based on the presented sources - listicles aren't great for notability - but this AfD shouldn't be the reason why it would be deleted, so a draft or new article is fine. SportingFlyerT·C 19:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation either by refunding the deleted version to draft space or restarting from scratch. There is new information since the last AFD that demonstrates notability. FrankAnchor 22:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unworthy of DRV. No nothing from here. If you are sure the reasons for deletion at the old AfD are overcome, and you are Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed, then create. Otherwise, use AfC. In both cases I recommend going to WP:REFUND and requesting undeletion to your userspace or draftspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's already here, I think an admin would be happy to provide it if consensus closes that way. No reason for them to go to a 2nd board. StarMississippi 12:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
undelete without prejudice to a new AfD AfD closure was fine. Things have improved, probably to the point the GNG is clearly met. But others may disagree. But best to give the applicant the old article as a starting point unless it was TNT-levels of bad. Plus A) it's old and B) frankly, that AfD wasn't great. Hobit (talk) 06:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Reşit Inceoğlu – There is no consensus about whether speedy deleting an article as G7 during an AfD is appropriate. The speedy deletion is therefore undone and the AfD restarted. Sandstein 08:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This was speedy deleted as G7 while there was an AfD going on. The problem with the current outcome is that it makes it eligible for WP:REFUND because of the G7 (otherwise it wouldn't matter much) while that certainly wasn't going to be the outcome of the AfD. So it's used as a way to evade the AfD process. Can this be reviewed please? Tehonk (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Temp undelete and protect for the remaining six days to allow the AfD to complete. The closing admin was right: pages undergoing AfD are not immune from speedy deletion. But in the case of G7, there is a real risk of an author gaming the system, so as to allow REFUND or evade G4. As the article will be behind a temp-undeleted template, there's no potential harm, and participants can view it in the history to decide about future recreation. Owen×☎ 02:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC) Or endorse and amend close per Alalch E.. Owen×☎ 12:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist and continue the AFD, because, as the nominator and OwenX have said, interrupting an AFD for a G7 can be used to game the system. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but amend the close. Enhance the outcome to be of the same quality as an outcome of a full AfD based on a consensus achieved, by amending the closing statement. Do not relist. Apply WP:NOTBURO to the duration question (WP:SNOW—there is a snowball's chance in hell for an outcome other than 'delete'). This should always be done when a G7 (specifically this criterion) is actioned during an AfD with unanimous delete !votes in my opinion. Closes should reflect this.—Alalch E. 12:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like this approach. We don't normally "SNOW" with only nom plus three !votes, but in this case, I agree with Alalch E. that it would be appropriate and avoid unnecessary process. Owen×☎ 12:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I roughly meant with my last comment on the AfD, so I'd support this. Styyx (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, look, none of this makes sense. Sysops have brains.When a sysop is asked to restore, they'll look at the latest revision. They'll see that there was an AfD in progress and refer the petitioner to DRV, because that's the process. And if they don't look because they're editing while medicated or tired and emotional, which unfortunately does happen because sysops are human, and they somehow miss that there was an AfD in progress, then the revision they restore will literally have a huge AfD template on it. It's not plausible that they'll miss that at that stage.And I do think that in the circumstances, it would be polite to ping David Eppstein and Explicit, don't you?—S MarshallT/C 16:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, tbh, I saw an admin refund something that was not eligible for REFUND at all (3 AfDs with delete and salt result, and the last deletion is speedy, so in no way was it eligible for REFUND) and the admin did not "refer the petitioner to DRV" (even a DRV for that thing would be disruptive as there was no valid reason for the undeletion, I see that the requester was also recently blocked for disruptive editing for similar behavior.)
So even if that can happen, this result is prone to being used to game the system more than that. Tehonk (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sysops have brains, but we know that some sysops don’t engage their brains when emptying CSD categories. If an AfD shows a consensus to delete, that should be reflected in the deletion log, and not avoided by a g7. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is a potential GAME issue. Let me propose a change to G7 to fix this... Jclemens (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse if the author requested deletion in the midst of an AfD and G7 applies, whoever would go to refund it - and let's be honest, it is almost certainly going to be the person who requested G7 - should be able to see that there was an AfD open. I don't see this as potentially gaming the system. I'm a bit confused considering the author seemed to want to keep the article in the AfD, though. SportingFlyerT·C 19:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to “Delete per consensus at AfD”. It’s a gaming route. User:Explicit Should have noted the page was at AfD, and take the option to close the AfD as “delete”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy, relist AFD and let it play out for the full seven days. Four delete votes (including the nom) and roughly one day listed at AFD does not justify a SNOW close, even with the G7 request.FrankAnchor 23:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think an AfD discussion with no keeps and a G7 claim, if correct, amounts to a consensus to delete. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not after just a single day of discussion. FrankAnchor 11:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But, an eligible G7 means there is consensus to delete it. So it is a waste of volunteer time to keep the AfD open. The G7 tagger can reasonably be assumed to be aware of the AfD, meaning the tagging is acquiescence. I think giving the deletion that status of an XfD consensus decision to delete is a good practical outcome. It can be REFUNDed to draft or userspace, but not back to mainspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see both sides of this argument. We routinely speedy-close an AfD after one day when the nom withdraws their nomination. By the same token, we should be able to speedy-close an AfD after one day when the author and only contributor asks for a G7, especially when there isn't a single !vote to keep it - provided we show it as an AfD close, not a CSD. That said, I also don't see much harm from allowing such an AfD to run its course. We've already spent more time debating this here than editors would have spent casting a few more "Delete" !votes before the page was finally given its mercy deletion. Owen×☎ 13:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as closer. If we're going to introduce a new rule that G7's are disallowed during AfDs because bad faith "it's a gaming route", can we perhaps at least try to include that rule in the WP:CSD description of the G7 criteria, rather than pretending it's already included there when it isn't? FWIW, my own interpretation of a G7 mid-AfD (especially one like this that was clearly headed towards deletion) is not "I'd like to preserve the option of a refund" but rather "ok, I give up, it's going to be deleted, let's stop dragging it out". —David Eppstein (talk) 05:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is reasonable fine tuning. G7 tagging means the page will be deleted, but I think the deletion log should be accurate, and point to the deletion discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made such a change, based on the discussion here, to CSD-G7 several hours ago. It has yet to be reverted. Jclemens (talk) 08:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like the change but it seems a bit vague. Instead of If an author requests deletion of a page currently undergoing a deletion discussion, the closing admin may interpret that request as agreement with the deletion rationale. I might go If an author validly requests deletion of a page currently undergoing a deletion discussion, the speedy deletion may be carried out, and an admin may speedily close the deletion discussion as a "delete" outcome.SportingFlyerT·C 16:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object to that. I intentionally used may and referenced the deletion rationale for it to be as generic, broad, and non-threatening as possible: CSDs shouldn't generally be messed with, so I only did so because I thought I had an approach (the closing admin may consider...) that not only reflected consensus, but didn't force or forbid anything, just gave everyone notice of what we've been discussing here. Jclemens (talk) 07:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's kind of misplaced. When a page is speedied during a deletion discussion, for whatever reason, the discussion gets a pro-forma close without consideration by the closer either way - at FFD it's actually done by a bot. Where the question arises isn't when the page is speedied, or when the deletion discussion is closed, but when it's requested to be restored; if we're not going to trust admins to have a little common sense, the place to make such a note is at WP:REFUND. —Cryptic 16:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If FFD is closed by bot after a speedy, then the clause I added wouldn't apply. I have no particular objection to this idea being mentioned at REFUND either instead of or in addition to what I added. I'm just pleased that a bold change I made to such a closely watched policy wasn't reverted out of hand, actually. :-) Jclemens (talk) 07:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
