Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokemon Quartz (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon Quartz

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

Non-notable video game. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. This was copypasted from Wikia and should have stayed there. Surfer43_¿qué_pasa? 18:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Fixed nom error (moved from [1]) czar ♔ 23:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) czar ♔ 23:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per previous AfD - it's an unofficial, non-notable (and probably illegal, not that it matters here) ROM hack. Could be speedied, if it's substantially the same content as the previous version. Ansh6 6 6 00:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article was copied and pasted from Wikia, has absolutely no sources, and was deleted in a previous AfD. No evidence of notability. If the text of the article is mostly the same as the last version, it should be G4'd. Novusuna ^talk 00:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (edit conflict) Same as Pokemon chaos black, article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It didn't pass a search engine test or have meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 00:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - more non-notable unofficial games trying to cash in on notable IP. Sergecross73 msg me 02:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment We cannot G4 delete this as the new article is far superior to the old one, and actually includes references. However I do not think it is worth keeping this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2013 (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.