Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In Verbis Virtus

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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Verbis Virtus

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

Nominating for deletion as a page created by User:Mr. Lama, a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Giovannigiulio. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 21:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The topic has plenty of introductory coverage in a video game reliable sources custom Google search, but not a lot in the reviews dept. The Italian sources in the article are potentially passable, but I haven't reviewed their reliability. The RPS intro can be construed as a review, and TT calls their's a "sort-of review". Ultimately, I see plenty of sources to write about the Gameplay and some Reception to this game, even if it's mostly on the basis of its core conceit (casting spells through speech recognition). czar 21:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources to show notability exists, this article can be salvaged. I don't see much point in deleting it just because a sock got creation credit, if it's perfectly valid to immediately recreate it. -- ferret (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, namely WP:VG/RS. It's not great, as Czar notes, but it's sufficient for GNG threshold. It doesn't look like there's any major content issues we cannot rewrite or source, so deletion doesn't seem necessary for that reason. If really pressed, we can just recreate the article. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:51, 5 February 2016 (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.