Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PayBack 2

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. All the !delete votes after the nom relied on the unsourced nature of the article, which has since been resolved by the addition of multiple references. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PayBack 2

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

Non-notable app. – Train2104 (t • c) 00:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of sources show up in the CSE, including dedicated critic reviews and a developer article. JOE BRO 64 01:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. I've removed the unsourced and dubious claims about player statistics, made the lead comprehensible and added a bunch of reliable sources in a hidden note, see diff. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, creator Nashdelacruz (talk · contribs) is making it really hard to keep supporting the article. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article creator blocked for incompetence or trolling. No opinion on this AFD, but this should at least make it easier to try to save it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, no indication of any notability. No objection to any editor who disagrees and can get it to a savable state, but what's there right now isn't enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Andy Dingley, despite the edit war with the creator, I do believe the game is notable enough. Did you see the sources listed at the talk page? Yesterday I quickly found these five sources by four different outlets, considered reliable sources by WP:VG/RS. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per all sorts of sourcing on talk page and linked above. Delete arguments are s complete failure of WP:BEFORE. Sergecross73 msg me 14:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Forget notability, an article with zero references in it fails WP:V. If nobody can be bothered to add any that exist to the article, we don't need it. Sandstein 11:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They're listed in the talk. I added some of them to the article now. It is a surmountable problem, so it doesn't seem a like a valid reason to delete to me. Galobtter (talk) 12:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to me there is plenty available to work with, and I spent all of 30 seconds searching. Besides what seems to be a general lack of BEFORE, I'm not sure V is a valid deletion rationale, and its a bit concerning seeing it being argued like it is. GMG ^talk 17:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since "look at the talk page" or "look at all the hits on Google" continues to be too much to ask of some editors, I've gone and implemented many into the article, and am listing below, so we can cut down on this but I don't see any sources time-wasting. Every source is a dedicated article to the subject by sources with a consensus for being reliable per WP:VG/S. Sergecross73 msg me 19:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think V is really a valid deletion rationale because if there are enough sources for notability there are enough to write a verifiable article. And anyways many sources have been added to the article now. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 03:22, 16 November 2017 (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.