Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MADELA

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 Speedy delete. Article deleted by User:Deb per WP:G4. (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MADELA

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

MADELA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This is a recreation of an article previously deleted at AfD. However, I don't think that G4 applies here, and the subject still fails WP:NVG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed G4 does not apply here. ​Please do not reference WP:NVG as it is an essay, not a guideline or policy. The lack of existence of reliable sources covering the topic in-depth, as in the WP:GNG, is sufficient to call for deletion. (See [1] the WP:VGSE.) --Izno (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Small indie games need definitive secondary, third-party sourcing to pass the GNG, and this doesn't appear to have any. --Masem (t) 21:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete and Salt per WP:G4. The original rationale for deletion has not been addressed, and cannot be addressed. This title obviously does not qualify for GNG and never will. Recreating it after an AFD was an abuse of process, and a sad attempt at PROMO editing. (Notice that the original article was also salted with the comment "Repeatedly recreated".) ApLundell (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2020 (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.