Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falling-sand game (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Falling-sand game

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

Hard to say for sure it's notable enough. The article seems to be written with only The Powder Toy in mind. There are no recent, reliable sources, and none of the sources given are in what would be considered "mainstream" media. For the record, I do like falling-sand games, but I know that doesn't mean anything as far as Wikipedia is concerned. flarn2006 [u t c] time: 04:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention: the only sources cited are under the "examples" section as examples of falling-sand games; everything else seems like original research. flarn2006 [u t c] time: 05:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 9. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 05:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep per sources in previous AfD (of which several are in the article). Majority needs to be pruned and/or rewritten, though. Ansh6 6 6 19:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE. Notability is conferred by multiple RSes. The article currently has a few and there appear to be more available online. This article should be improved, not deleted. -Thibbs (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We do not require that sources be "recent". Notability is established; a serious scrubbing is needed but AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources in the article pass WP:GNG. Dream Focus 19:26, 16 October 2013 (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.