Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Aftershock

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 speedy keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Aftershock[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Very low effort article, 4 references, and not even a gameplay section. Either redirect to WWE 2K, or have it deleted. TheSecondComing10 (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Wrestling. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Very low effort" is not a deletion reason. Three reviews on reliable outlets is enough to satisfy WP:NVG. The article should be enhanced instead. IceWelder [✉] 16:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep No valid deletion rationale provided by nom. Article shows numerous reliable source reviews already, WP:GNG is met. -- ferret (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are seven reviews at metacritic, including IGN and GameSpot. The article is in rough shape, but it's a clear topic that meets the WP:GNG. Someone just needs to go into the archived pages and summarize them. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Per reasons above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerryPerryD (talk • contribs) 17:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because an article isnt finished doesnt mean it should be destroyed. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 17:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per reasons already mentioned.Timur9008 (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Doesn't feel like this nomination was made in good faith. As stated above, just because an article is in poor shape, doesn't mean it should be deleted. Sources exist and this meets GNG SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 17:41, 15 March 2022 (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.