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.
Kurykh (
talk) 00:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment Besides the reliable sources already in the article, there's also
Slate,
PCMag,
CNN.
IBTimes (Questionable reliably if I recall though),
Daily Dot (Questionable reliably),
NY Daily News... There's a lot of sourcing available from secondary reliable sources, however, it feels a little bit like a
WP:ONEEVENT situation (Which normally only applies to people). The coverage is entirely about the game's removal, and appears to be covered only by typical daily news. Other than PCMag, there appears to be no coverage from any typical VG reliable sources and no direct coverage of the game itself separate from it's removal. --
ferret (
talk) 21:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment - When an article already has several good sources listed, "lack of notability" with no further explanation is not a very good rationale. I would ask
TheDracologist to explain her thoughts a bit more fully. LadyofShalott 16:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)reply
It appears to be a single event that had little to no long-term impact.
TheDracologist (
talk) 01:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep Plenty of sourcing. While its mostly known for one event,
WP:ONEEVENT applies to people. I'm not sure it can be used for a video game. I'd say "very weak" keep, but I wouldn't want to see this deleted as a default due to low participation. If someone has another policy that applies, please ping me. --
ferret (
talk) 20:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per failing
WP:NEVENT and
WP:NOTNEWS. The subject of sources (removal from store) is not the subject of the article (video game). The removal event itself is a one-time news event, which doesn't pass any event notability criteria, such as
WP:LASTING or
WP:COVERAGE. The actual video game fails
WP:GNG with no in-depth sources, such as reviews from
WP:VG/RS. The sources are mainly about one aspect of the video game's timeline, which is not in-depth enough to provide substantial content for gameplay, development, or general critical reception to adhere to
WP:WAF. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK 18:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Per HELLKNOWZ, who was able to state what I was trying to get to in my first comment. --
ferret (
talk) 18:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Would delete ASAP: Sounds controversial to me, and violates my right as a LGBT supporter.
Xyaena 04:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Oh the game sounds horrible. That is not a deletion criterion, however. LadyofShalott 05:08, 24 March 2017 (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.