The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

---

The outcome of this request for deletion was to  Keep. --Enfcer (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015 (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

K6ka has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Non notable game that has little coverage in reliable sources. It is tagged for deletion on the English Wikipedia -- see [1]. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 19:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

• Keep. There is a sizeable list of sources in the article, and nothing to indicate that they aren't reliable. Being nominated for deletion at enwiki isn't a reason to delete here, but it is worth noting that most of the votes there are to keep. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Aside from anyone's beliefs or seeing this as humor, the game itself is clearly retaliation. The article may be presumed to be notable, based on coverage, but it seems to violate What Wikipedia is not—Propaganda or advocacy. Besides, what real encyclopedia would have an article on a game such as this one that has such a clear political purpose? User:Rus793 (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retaliation against what? This encyclopedia would have an article on anything that is notable, whether or not there is an agenda. It's our job to be sure such articles are neutral, and I don't see any propaganda, politics, or anything similar in the description. There's so little there that there's hardly room for it. Remember that Wikipedia is not censored. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Despite the fact that it may seem like a joke, it has enough references to escape deletion. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 11:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I found this one difficult to judge. It has vanished from the media very quickly (famous for five minutes). Some news items are so fleeting that putting them in an encyclopedia seems inappropriate. I feel it is unencyclopedic rather than not notable. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not temporary. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, enough reliable sources and public attention in different countries from U.S. to Indonesia or Sweden. --Dezidor (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, coverage in Vice News and The Epoch Times, in addition to Spanish language publications Eldiario, MeriStation, German language at Gulli, and also Dutch language, and the Indonesia publication Republika. Cirt (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 19:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.