Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Netrunner

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Skylerblue77 (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Netrunner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

The last release for this specific game was in 1999. The more popular current game, Android: Netrunner, is more commonly referred to in the community as, simply, Netrunner. At this point, it is simply not notable. Skylerblue77 (talk) 05:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by Nominator: It has come to the nominator's attention that the nominator was mistaken in the guidelines for deletion, specifically regarding WP:GNG. This nomination has been withdrawn, and the nominator will seek to close it with WP:SK. Skylerblue77 (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notability is not temporary, this subject meets the general notability guideline with sources already present in the article. Here are three, though there are more in the article:

1. Edward Rothstein in New York Times, Feb 1996 has a >700 word article about the game.[1]
2. Jack Skrip in InQuest, May 1996, has a multi-page article about the game. Listed under Further Reading in the article.
3. Richard Weld in Scrye, April 2003, has a full page article about the game from after it went out of print. This includes some retrospective history of the subject, further demonstrating sustained notability beyond doubt.

Please also note that the existence of other subjects with similar or identical names is never a reason for deletion. For handling such casees, please see WP:Disambiguation. —siroχo 06:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm seeing the WP:GNG met by three sources (Arcane, Inquest, Pyramid) already cited in the reception section of the article, and two more reviews linked right below that (Scrye and Casus Belli), as well as the Duelist as a source and if you don't love those it's even got the NY Times. BOZ (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And not that there is any reasonable basis to compare for the purpose of deletion, but the Android: Netrunner article only cites two non-primary sources (Critical Review and Null Signal Games) which may or may not be RS as far as I know, and a cite from BGG for an award; how is that enough to determine it to be a "more popular" game than a game with an article having at least 8 known RS? BOZ (talk) 08:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not to get too far off track, but incidentally, this article provides one good source for Android: Netrunner [2] —siroχo 08:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• If it was notable enough for inclusion 20 years ago, it is now. We can discuss renaming or redirects, but not deletion. Smeagol 17 (talk) 09:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets GNG, and the nomination is simply confused about how deletion policy and notability work. There's no such thing as "at this point ... not notable". If something becomes encyclopedically notable then it remains that way even if its popularity fades.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly the article has notability from the cited sources, and their validity has been discussed here by others. Nominator shouldn't be nominating articles for deletion if they don't understand notability, or they are not double-checking the sources to determine they meet the criteria. Leitmotiv (talk) 16:45, 8 October 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.