Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MASH (game)

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. ——RyanLupin • (talk) 10:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MASH (game)[edit]

Does not appear to be so well-known as to deserve an article. Certainly, there is very little evidence that the game described is known under this name... unless of course you are the owner of the domain name www.mashgame.com/ ! Pichpich (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~. I think the game is notable enough that a well-referenced article should be allowed to stand. That said, I'm not sure where independent coverage of the game can be found. (If sources are found during the debate, please leave a message on my talk page so I can re-evaluate my !vote.) —C.Fred (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It looks like the sources are out there, so the articles needs fixed, not trashed. —C.Fred (talk) 04:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This has to be one of the most popular childhood games there is, sort of like she loves me she loves me not while pick petals off a flower. That being said I am sure references will be hard to find. I don't know a single person who hasn't played this as a kid. -Djsasso (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We played this game as a kid in the 80s, and I knew it under this name. Yeah, yeah, IKNOWIT, but I'll look for sources - my gut says this is saveable. Townlake (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I never heard of the game but:

One good source [1]
And some passing references [2], [3], [4]

There appear to be a fair number of these. Hobit (talk) 02:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely heard of it from many independent sources. Definitely worth having an article for it. Valley2city 04:14, 24 July 2008 (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.