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. The consesus seems to be to delete DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snake Pit[edit]

Snake Pit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search apart from KLOV. A redirect to the dev (Sente Technologies) could suffice. czar 20:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 20:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't really care much about the article or subject, and I'm not sure if it even merits an article, I just objected to the move that was made without any discussion. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 20:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Game is notable for an article. Neptune's Trident (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what reliable, secondary sources? czar 23:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's this one. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 02:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link from Google Books. Snake pit is mentioned in the magazine on page 66. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 13:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And how would that be significant coverage? czar 11:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete perhaps at best as "Snake Pit 1984 video game" found a few links at Books but it's still questionable perhaps. Best restarted if better is available later perhaps, SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I've found some pretty good sources for a little info on it. It may not actually meet notability, but there is information out there. I'd say it could be kept as a stub or given some more complete mention on the developer's article. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 13:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it doesn't meet notability, it shouldn't stay.

I'm really okay with it going either way, I suppose. I'd like to see those sources put on the developer article, though. I could do it, or someone else could, if it so pleases them. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 13:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect. Does not meet WP:GNG. Czar is correct, there are simply not enough reliable sources. WP:ITEXISTS is not an argument. There's also no reason to keep this stub when it could easily be part of the developer's article. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Sente Technologies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 14 April 2016 (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.