Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M&M's Break' Em (2nd nomination)

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 per WP:SCLOSE. Nominator failed to advance an argument for deletion. No prejudice against speedy re-nomination if an argument for deletion based in policy is made. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

M&M's Break' Em (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)

Has been tagged for over a year and still no improvement since the last AFD. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 17:17, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 17:17, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Procedural. No deletion argument presented. That no one bothered to work on it since the last AFD does not change the last AFD's conclusions that enough sourcing existed per WP:NEXIST. -- ferret (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There was only 3 reliable sources mentioned in the Afd and one of the sources only had a small mention of the game. As for my self I couldn’t find any other sources on the web or newspapers. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 17:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Please advance an actual deletion rationale, you've yet to do so. Under what policy? For what reasoning? The nominator is required to do this. IGN, GameZone, Gry Online, Nintendojo, all full reviews from WP:VG/S reliable listed sources. -- ferret (talk) 17:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this already survived an AFD, and not only does this nomination not advance any further/new argument, it actually violates WP:NOTCLEANUP. Sergecross73 msg me 18:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No reason for deletion outside asking for us to work on it, and a good generic stub overall. Maybe the nom could improve the article themselves rather than run to deletion? Nate • (chatter) 18:25, 23 October 2022 (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.