Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beat Hazard

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. WP:SNOW close as well as due to nominator not doing adequate research of sources. (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beat Hazard

[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)

No evidence of any notability. Refs are niche review sites and commercial sites. Nothing reliable and independent. Searches reveal more of the same but nothing better. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Metacritic gives at least 5 sites of recognized reliability for reviews of the game (IGN, PC Gamer, GameSpot, PALGN, Eurogamer). A news search shows some additional coverage indepth about the game from other gaming sites. There's also the sequel which alone is no notable, but is notable together with the first game (eg both games together have better collective notability than either alone). --Masem (t) 22:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've dumped over 20 valid reliable sources on the talk page, probably more than enough for this to be GA if a motivated editor is up for it. Not counting the reviews and plenty of duplicate announcement type sources I skipped, there's even some interviews and development news as well as sales data. During my search I saw plenty of sources about the sequel that I did not include, to add to Masem's commentary about it, so those are missing in my dump. -- ferret (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is in a very poor state, but that is no reason for deletion per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Combining Beat Hazard and it's DLC, Ultra's coverage (the game released as Beat Hazard Ultra on consoles and iOS), there is Destructoid [1], Kotaku [2], Shack News [3], IGN [4], AdWeek [5], Pocket Gamer [6], Touch Arcade [7], Geek.com [8], Gamespot [9], Eurogamer [10], Push Square (sister site of Nintendo Life) [11], and Digitally Downloaded (reliable per WP:VG/RS) [12]. Passes WP:GNG easily, and I would suggest the nominator to withdraw the AfD. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - definitely a lazily/poorly written article, but this nomination is equally bad, if you found “no evidence of notability” while the above three editors easily found a ton of sources. Sergecross73 msg me 16:17, 14 June 2019 (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.