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 the snowball clause. No purpose keeping this open for the last 12 hours. MuZemike 17:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Far Gate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This appears to be a non-notable game. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve article gamespot review and And 43,000 other hits seems to be a crap game, but that does not a deleted article make. --President of Internets (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep under promise of improvements (see below). We need a convention somewhere that says having a few big-media video game website reviews counts as "notable" (10+ in this case), because for some reason that always seems to have a psychological impact. The game might be older, have gotten mostly sour reviews, and have a developer sleepwalking around with little activity the past several years, but this should be a keep. The article itself is even mostly polite by wikifying celestial bodies mentioned, and neutrality is pleasantly noted by a lack of an attempted creation of an article for the development studio or other products they've made, so I'm lead to believe this wasn't created with ill intentions of self-publication or similar. Some leeway should also be given with the article creator being a new account and this being his/her first contribution. If nothing has changed by the time the AfD period expires I might suggest it be renewed another week to allow extra improvement time on good faith. Datheisen (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Notice - Just started cleanup/improvement of article; it's significantly changed since nomination. A lot of further work can be done, particularly a rewrite of the plot section and better description of the gameplay. More sources would be great too. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Already looks a thousand times better! I had to actually make sure it was the article of the same name as earlier. It's a good thing. Crossed out the improvements clause of Keep above with my main statement since you've shown fantastically great faith so quickly. No concerns personally; I'll watch the page and see what it looks like after the week AfD period has passed and see if any cleanup tags might still be needed. Datheisen (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Won a notable games industry award (2000 IGF Audience Choice). Also per President of Internets and improvements above. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Further Notice - Article is now massively expanded, including image, infobox, and tons of cites. Could still use more input in the plot and gameplay sections (I've never actually played it myself so I'm entirely interpolating review sites here for info). - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Improvements have made this deletion request appear moot for now. -- ISLANDERS27 09:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Article also has an IGN review --Teancum (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't see a need to delete this. Avid attempts have been made to make it better and it's a lot better than the original article. businessman332211 (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant coverage in mainstream gaming/electronic media publications, and winner of a notable award Gotyear (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability has been established, well done DustFormsWords and thank you for the work. Someoneanother 20:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. With a bit more work we can probably get it to Good Article if anyone's interested in helping. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It has plenty of references proving its notability. Dream Focus 06:21, 26 October 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.