Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Markstrat

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. There is no consensus to delete the article. Discussions regarding merging and other cleanup functions can, of course, continue on the article's discussion page. Joyous! | Talk 02:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Markstrat

[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)

A substantially promotional page, tagged as such since 2017, which has never had any references to independent sources, and for which significant coverage in independent sources has not been found on searching. No evidence of notability. JBW (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found these [1], [2], [3] Timur9008 (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't agree that this page is written particularly promotionally. It reads as if the person who wrote it has a positive view of the subject but not overtly so. I was able to find a small yet reasonable amount of WP:SIGCOV [4][5][6] to list a few. Also, referencing the sources found by Timur9008, the second source tells us that the game had 250 million players, which if true really gives it a good chance at passing WP:GNG. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 18:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I do see that someone edited the page since this discussion was posted, removing much promotional content. It certainly appeared more promotional before. WP:HEY GoldMiner24 ^Talk 18:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I find is the game's website, then youtube videos about how to play it. No sources, not at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge the sources from Timur9008 are probably enough, along with the journal article[7] from GoldMiner24. The article will need to be re-written from these sources, and might fit better in the biographies of the academics who made it. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:35, 30 January 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.