Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goal Line Blitz (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 delete. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Goal Line Blitz

(Find video game sources: "Goal Line Blitz" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. In its current state, it is entirely unsourced and there are no reviews (or coverage at all) from reliable sources. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. – czar 19:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing WP:GNG as lacking significant, independent, reliable coverage to suit WP:WAF, such as from WP:VG/RS. Looking at previous AfD, while delete arguments center on lack of notability, the keep arguments center around WP:POPULARITY, which is not lasting notability in WP terms. There are other minor arguments, but most are incompatible with notability. Their site list some press mentions. I don't have access to the magazine (I suspect it's one of those blurbs rather than a full review), GameFront page is 404 and there's no archive (being under "news.", I doubt it was a full review), while [1] is in fact unreliable per WP:VG/RS. Removing the WP:GAMECRUFT/WP:FANCRUFT from the article would leave us with a stub as there are no reliable sources to use for expansion. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 03:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notable game, and did not receive enough coverage from reliable source. AdrianGamer (talk) 05:21, 27 August 2015 (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.