Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DigitalMania (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. As indicated by others, to overturn a unanimous AfD keep consensus (let alone less than two months ago), the nomination would need to be much more thorough and persuasive, directly addressing the arguments and sources in the previous AfD. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DigitalMania

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Appears to fail WP:NORG. Amigao (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Tunisia. Shellwood (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article survived its first nomination only in May, albeit seemingly on the existence of sources that, since that nomination, still have not been added to the article. (Meanwhile, the most significant editing since then has been from a new user trying to add more non-RS and even the official description of one of the company's games—which I've requested revdel for—all of which have been reverted out.) I have no opinion on anything more than that, but it does show that sources identified as reliable in AfDs should be added to the article ASAP to avoid future renominations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:38, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep No acknowledgement of why the previous AfD's sources were not sufficient, suggests that it was made in error without checking the previous AfD history. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:45, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The nominator should have used the sources given in the previous AfD to improve the article instead of nominating it less than 2 months later. Ike Lek (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article was nominated for deletion in May 2025 and survived with a majority of keep votes. Nominating it for deletion again just two month later doesn’t seem like a good idea. Baqi:) (talk) 06:31, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Amigao: Have you read the previous AFD? IgelRM (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the sources WP:NEXIST to establish notability per the comments above and previous AFDs. They just need to be added into the article, and WP:THEREISNORUSH. -2pou (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2025 (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.