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. SK#1: nom proposes non-deletion action (merge), no other deletion recommendations advanced. Please see Wikipedia:Proposed mergers to start a merge discussion. (non-admin closure) czar · · 05:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Iron Man 3 (video game)[edit]

Iron Man 3 (video game) (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)

Merge to Iron Man 3. The article fails to meet general notability guidelines. There is no reason that with the few reliable sources that exist, the content cannot be easily housed in its parent article. TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 6. Snotbot  t • c »  22:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge with Iron Man 3 and redirect this page: There are not enough sources, or notable coverage, with substantial information to warrant an individual article. What has already been written on Iron Man 3 is perfectly fine, with possibly what little was added to this article, added there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge with Iron Man 3: There is simply not enough coverage and information to support a standalone page. The list that was added to this page means nothing to people who are not intimately familiar with the material, and the rest can be (and mostly is) covered in a few sentences in the main article. -Fandraltastic (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even with the list, a simple link to the Iron Man's armor (film) page would be sufficient, with context around the link. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strong Keep - Did the nominator follow through on WP:BEFORE? Did anyone even attempt to do any source searching? I didn't even have to get creative, a mere Google search of "Iron Man 3 video game" came up with all source of reliable sources, that have consensus that they are indeed reliable, at WP:VG/S.

1. IGN - Detailed Review
2. Game Informer - Detailed Review
3. Gamezebo - Detailed Review
4. Digital Spy - Brief Review
5. Slide to Play - Detailed Review
6. Touch Arcade - Detailed Review
7. Technology Tell - Detailed Article
8. USA Today even dedicated an entire story on it. This clearly meets the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I don't believe anyone is suggesting that the game does not warrant a mention on Wikipedia. However, you've done a good job of representing the issue here - all of those sources cover the same 4 or 5 pieces of information, leaving little room to expand an article beyond that. Add to that the fact that the game's brief window of relevance, as a marketing piece for the movie, has already passed. We would be left with an eternal stub, whereas including the game as a one or two paragraph subsection in the marketing section of the film's article allows it sufficient coverage. Per WP:NOPAGE, "a decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic." -Fandraltastic (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• These are but a handful of sources covering the same aspect of the topic, its reception. If there were more sources covering a larger array of topics, I would agree. The issue seems to come down to how many sources is enough to be considered "significant coverage".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• You guys aren't even trying. Its very easy to take details from reviews and use them to write "Gameplay" sections. I also noticed there are 2 sources in the article I didn't list, and more reviews at the games Metacritic page. There's plenty of sources/content to work with, and the Iron Man 3 main article is massive, making it a poor choice for a merge. AFD is not cleanup. Sergecross73 msg me 19:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Iron Man 3: The Official Game has many more areas that can be added into the article, such as the maps and descriptions of them, descriptions of the armor power-ups and their multipiers, and the story that is involved in the game among the four villians. With time and help from other editors this page could easily grow.Brian82027 (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Notability is determined by reliable WP:THIRDPARTY sources not WP:PRIMARY sources.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment - article has been moved/redirected to Iron Man 3: The Official Game. Ansh666 21:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Sounds like a pretty horrible game, but a well-sourced horrible game. The AfD result should clearly be keep but merging (no clue where, the main movie page isn't a good idea IMO) is something that could be discussed on the talk page. Hobit (talk) 01:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment - I have completely rewritten and greatly expanded the article, adding all of the sources I listed above. It is entirely different from its time of nomination, and there is plenty of content to cover now. (And there's still more to add too.) Please take this into consideration when giving stance. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 21:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep and improve - at risk of citing WP:OTHERSTUFF, precedent seems to favor keeping the article. Also, per Sergecross, article is much improved since nomination. Ansh666 21:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. Meets the GNG. 03:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep in light of improvements to article's content and sourcing. Meets GNG and seems to be capable of presenting significant amount of information that is independent of the topic of its parent article. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[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.