Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic Fun (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 keep. Sandstein 10:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Fun

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

~~Can't find anything about this compilation. Coin945 (talk) 08:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)~~ Changed to Keep I have improved the article myself using available sources and believe it is notable.--Coin945 (talk) 07:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Claims of notability in the previous AfD seem to have been merely assertions, as no sources were provided. Cant find any secondary sources. Non-notable. --Brustopher (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC) Switch[reply]

Switching to Keep clearly I was wrong about the lack of sources. --Brustopher (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I was able to find a fair number of mentions, including some reliable sources, albeit many were tangential: Small Wars Journal Anthology mention, Article from The Independent, very brief mention in a book on video games, another brief mention, and another brief mention. Here are a couple more, possibly not reliable sources: 1, 2. The game package itself looks like garbage, but it does seem like it may be borderline notable as a generator of controversy.PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We should not have entries for every home-made videogame ever released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.25.196 (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep and withdrawn~~ Comment After improving the article I believe there's a notable article here. @PohranicniStraze:, would you care to help me improve it to send it to WP:DYK? It's a controversial but important piece of video gaming history, methinks.--Coin945 (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI this can't be closed as withdrawn because others have already commented in favor of deletion (otherwise this would have been a Speedy Keep candidate). However you can strikethrough your nomination statement to make it more evident if you wish. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 07:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Coin945:, looks like you've done an excellent job expanding the article, well done! PohranicniStraze (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can someone with a Higbeam account read through these sources and add the content? https://www.highbeam.com/Search?searchTerm="Islamic+Fun"--Coin945 (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Coin945: I think you should request at WP:RX, volunteers there may help. Though I don't know how long one may have to wait. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sources are enough to how meeting WP:GNG, it was very controversial in the past and received wider coverage from multiple reliable sources more than the present state of the article shows. But notability is not temporary WP:NOTTEMP. Therefore we can't say delete it since its popularity has waned. Ammarpad (talk) 05:11, 29 December 2017 (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.