Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monochroma

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 delete. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 16:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Monochroma[edit]

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

I don;t think the sources are sufficient for a game not yet released. DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the sources are sufficient for an upcoming independent video game. (IGF entrant page, Gamasutra's news, Mod DB profile page, IGN's gameplay commentary video) And game's demo is available. (Demo on Indie DB page) Also I've added Template:Upcoming games for article. Quicklyman (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG, based on Gene93k's sources. Diego (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Those links aren't from Gene93k. Furthermore, none of them are reliable sources. The IGF entrant page is dead, and woulnd't be independent anyways; Gamasutra is a press release; moddb is their own self-submitted profile; IGN gameplay commentary is marked as an advertisement; and being available for download isn't a notability criterion. -- Whpq (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As Whpq said, none of the sources provided by Quicklyman show notability. SL93 (talk) 00:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2013 (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.