- 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. GedUK 08:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rugby Challenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No links or information to confirm the existince. Sillytimmy1 (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Wikpedia is not a crystal ball. Cullen328 (talk) 04:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep AFD was added 3-4 minutes after the page was first created, give the author and others a chance to actually revise the thing before deleting. Unreferenced tag would be much more appropriate. Chopper Dave (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Article is also much improved since AFD, which IMO invalidates Delete votes. Chopper Dave (talk)
- Comment Article still lacks independent, reliable sources needed to establish notability. If they are added, consider my delete recommendation withdrawn. Chopper Dave, please assume good faith in your edit summaries. Thank you. 21:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The title is well into development (as shown in TV article) and has merit as an intellectual property. The publisher has an official site for the game, has issued a press release, both included in the article, and is well into development. It is releasing in less than a year. Kiwichix0r (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) X201 (talk) 09:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (or at least Delay decision) WP:VG was only made aware of this article's existence today (Article did not have project tag, and deletion discussion was listed in games deletion discussions section rather than video game deletion discussions. Suggest waiting for additional comments from project members. - X201 (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The News 3 segment is good, but I think I'd like to see an additional source (other than press releases) to warrant anything other than a redirect/merge to the developer's article. At this point. Marasmusine (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional coverage on NZ Gamer here. Kiwichix0r (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep There are a few sources out there, and it seems likely to expand in the future as more sources become available. Adabow (talk · contribs) 19:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk · contribs) 19:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, additional significant coverage at NZ Gamer, thanks Kiwichix0r. Marasmusine (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per crystal ball Stuartyeates (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2010 (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.