Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resistance 2

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, per WP:Speedy keep and considering the nominator's contributions to date. Marasmusine (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resistance 2

Resistance 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Not good enough with WP:N, does not have good article quality. --AfDproXX (talk) 05:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. High-selling video games from major studios are absolutely notable, and need for cleanup is not a reason for deletion (FWIW, this seems to be a decently-written article at first glance). BryanG (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong (if not speedy) keep - Notability clearly demonstrated, trying to see if there's a WP:POINT to this nomination. --MASEM 06:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, advancing to speedy keep when it starts snowing, as this quite likely will.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The subject ticks all the boxes in regards to WP:N, and then some. ~ NossB (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I agree with the abovestated reasons Pirate452 (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The game has been reviewed by different sources. The quality of the article is not a valid reason for deletion. --J.Mundo (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 15:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the snowball clause and that it is good enough with WP:N. Frankly, I have seen articles in worse quality. MuZemike 15:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest Ever Keep What the?. What sort of nomination is this. This is most absurd, funny, weird, strange and (anything that fits) AFD nomination. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Well-written, sourced article on a notable product.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  16:05, 22 January 2009 (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.