Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Water Closet: The Forbidden Chamber

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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Water Closet: The Forbidden Chamber[edit]

Well, since an IP user removed the PROD template, here we are. This article has no content, and changed little since 2005, so I'm nominating this for deletion. - Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 16:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A3SD. No content warrants a CSD, not just AfD. Two One Six Five Five ^τ_ʃ 17:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...Yeah, I don't know what I was thinking. Nominated the article for speedy deletion. Admins, please close this AfD. - Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 17:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. This article does not meet the speedy deletion criteria (neither A1 nor A3). It clearly has enough context "to identify the topic". It is simply a short stub. It is quite possible that it should be deleted for lack of notability, but that's a matter for this AfD. --Itub (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Itub and have removed the csd tag. You can clearly identify the context. Woody (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The talk page includes an excerpt of a review published in New Zealand, though the English version of the game was released in the US. This suggests that other reviews can be found to establish the notablity. (The article bizarrely doesn't identify the original Japanese game creator -- odd.) —Quasirandom (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 15:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE, no attempt at notability (i.e., no refs or third-party citations).--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 19:24, 19 February 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.