Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dust Racing 2D

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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dust Racing 2D

[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)

Contested WP:PROD. Fails WP:GNG. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This game does not have enough coverage from reliable sources to get an article. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sourcing. Plenty of hits in a German site called Computer Bild, rest are blogs. Oaktree b (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This subject does not meet any notability guidelines. User:Let'srun 01:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; quite literally nothing here and there's eight year old maintenance tags as well. Search engine pulls up no sources. This article must be sent to the cemetery. NegativeMP1 (talk) 07:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found 3 reviews for it, Linux Voice, Linux Format, and the official Softpedia review that's already cited in the article. With these, it certainly passes GNG. Deletion rescue man, away! ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was almost ready to withdraw, but our own article says that "the editorial staff of the Linux Voice came entirely from the UK magazine Linux Format." They, therefore, don't appear to have been sufficiently independent of each other. Charcoal feather (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ehh... they are separate reviews, in separate magazines, years apart. One was written by Ben Everard, while the other was written by Mike Saunders. I am unconvinced they are related enough to disqualify it as SIGCOV. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure of the significance, but if you look at the editorial teams for both magazines, Ben Everard and Mike Saunders were on the editorial staff for both publications. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 03:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Zxcvbnm. Timur9008 (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are still threadbare in terms of independent commentary on the game; it is not clear to me that this game has notability. The Softpedia article has fairly minimal commentary on the game other than that it's "fun", with the rest being a general description commensurate with the site's status as a file hosting website. WP:VG/S seems to have some commentary that it is not a clearly reliable source. I appreciate the help finding the other sources, but I think this falls short. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was harder since it was in Italian, but I found another review in Linux Pro. While the formatting is similar as Linux Format, so I assume there is some relation, it's indeed a completely different review by a different person appearing years later. Therefore I think it would qualify as a separate publication for the sake of SIGCOV, especially because it's for a different country. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Zxcvbnm; solid work, I didn't even think to check the Internet Archive! Anyway, I think the reviews are decent enough to pass as secondary coverage. PantheonRadiance (talk) 08:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per new sources. Bobherry Talk My Edits 01:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still No consensus regarding sources mentioned in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 30 August 2023 (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.