Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digimon world:re:digitize

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. Jujutacular ^talk 22:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Digimon world:re:digitize

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

Unreferenced article about an upcoming game. WP:TOOSOON and no evidence of (current) notability. Endorsed Prod removed without comment by original author, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 07:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Digimon video games for the time being, but if possible this might be worth incubating if I can find enough sources to justify doing so. So far it's pretty slim pickings, especially since the game doesn't even have a release date yet. Most of the sources all focus on the same news tidbits, so I doubt I'll find enough sources to justify this being kept.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Comment. I looked through the Japanese sources (yay for Google translate) and it's pretty hard to find anything beyond teaser information so far. I'm going to stand by my decision to redirect for the time being and userfy/incubate if someone would be interested in doing so.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep these games are notable but this article needs a ton o work.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the popularity of the brand I tend to favor keeping this one given independent sources about it do exist. Though, it clearly needs work. —Ed!^(talk) 17:32, 29 December 2011 (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.