Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamebox 1.0

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. Keep given recent article improvements. The movie looks terrible but the article is in acceptable shape. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gamebox 1.0

[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)

Tagged as unsourced for over a year, doesn't appear to have ever had sources, and my search didn't come up with any useful coverage. QuietHere (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is one reliable source review at DVDTalk [1] DonaldD23 talk to me 18:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think I saw that in my search but saw the Amazon price listing and assumed it was a sales site, so thanks for the double-check. And the review is most likely good given it's written by Rotten Tomatoes-approved critic Scott Weinberg. Just one review isn't enough to save the article but it's a start. QuietHere (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment so it's a movie and not a homebrew thing... Not terribly much else, this on IGN [2], like half a review. One more source and we might be at GNG.Oaktree b (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found one more review, this one from Fresno Bee. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks coverage for notability Andre🚐 18:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite ready to withdraw 'cause I still want more opinions on this, but with the sources that have been added this might just squeeze by now. Thanks all for the searching, love to see a rescued article so hopefully it gets there. QuietHere (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It has two reviews and I was also able to find something to give it a bit of a production section as well. It's not the most stellar article, but I think that overall there's enough to justify a weak keep here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as three reliable sources have been added to the article so that WP:GNG is met and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:06, 16 September 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.