Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progress Quest (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Progress Quest[edit]

This is a nonnotable parody of a class of games. It has recieved no coverage in 3rd party sources that satisfy WP:N RogueNinja_talk 02:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I stumbled upon this article from elsewhere in Wikipedia and found it interesting and helpful. It had the candidate for deletion tag on it when I found it; it was a good thing it wasn't gone when I found it because I enjoyed the information it contained and used it to find more out about the game. I think it should stay so that others like myself may happen upon it and have access to the information it provides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.112.229 (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We've been through this before; see the first AfD. ThePointblank (talk) 07:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above this appear to be a superfluous AFD the article has been nominated before and was kept with no-one besides the original nominator saying anything but keep, The articles does have third party sources with the article ^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 14:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable per the usual standards. I see no compelling case for special consideration here, certainly the nomination fails to provide one. Wily D 14:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing seems to have changed since last time... Firebat08 (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wow, who actually took the time to read the AFDs? The cited concern is a lack of secondary sources per Wikipedia:Notability. The first AFD (from three years ago) does not address this issue, so arguing to keep based on that is worthless. Pagra shtak 20:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, I didn't read the initial AfDs. I looked over the nomination, I looked over the article, then I applied the policies. From there, it's an easy keep, with no need to bother about old AfDs (which may have followed different standards & whatnot). WilyD 21:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since you didn't argue to keep based on the old AFD, my comment was not addressed to you. Although, I will point out that your keep reason is based in a guideline, not a policy. That's not to say that it's incorrect, though. Pagra shtak 16:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Err, fair enough. In practice, the difference between policies/guidelines/essays/sassy redirects is not well defined. Wily D 19:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as reliable sources indicate notability. I will, however, note that keeping "per the previous AfD" is not exactly moot as consensus and policy/guidelines can change over the course of three years (but that's beside the point). MuZemike (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep with Cleanup There are two sources lists that seem to give credible reliability. These need to be worked into a reception section instead of just sitting there in the article -- this still many not necessary guaranty sufficient notability for this to be kept, but its impossible to make that without the expansion at this time, thus erring on side of caution with a keep for the time being. --MASEM 13:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some commentry from cnet.co.uk and added a request for expansion. There's enough reliable coverage to satisfy notability guidelines. Marasmusine (talk) 11:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, no prejudice against re-nomination - This article has a few reliable third-party sources. But nobody knows what they say. We don't know that they've provided adequate information to show that this topic is WP:NOTABLE enough to be covered. Someone needs to actually find these sources, read them, and include them as part of a "Reception" section. If they can't, it might be safe to assume that they are trivial mentions. ("Download of the Day" type of coverage is often just a web link, with no real critical information.) If they are just trivial mentions, this article cannot meet our guidelines, and should be deleted. But give it one last chance, as per User:Masem. Randomran (talk) 17:25, 5 November 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.