- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Discover My Body ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I found an in-depth review from an inconclusive source, and a four paragraph review from a different inconclusive source. GamingOnLinux is unreliable, so the other secondary source in the article can't be used. QuietCicada ( talk) 23:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. QuietCicada ( talk) 23:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I believe that the article passes
GNG. The references on the article are perhaps not sufficient to prove this but a quick google search gives enough sources. The most compelling source is
this Youtube video with 4 million views.
GoldMiner24
Talk
00:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- It's a very bad sign if a YouTuber is your "most compelling" source. Few of them, Markplier included, are considered a reliable source in the Wikipedia context. Sergecross73 msg me 01:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Well, this is reliable as it's published after Aug 2020 [1] (see /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources), but it's trivial coverage. That's all I have. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, DreadXP and Softonic seem like unreliable sources to me (no editorial team or review policy). GamingOnLinux and Markplier are also unreliable sources. TheGamer is not SIGCOV. -- Mika1h ( talk) 09:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The game has a lack of significant coverage and does not pass GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 18:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: I can't find any additional sources, what's given is trivial, my one reference isn't cutting it, we'd need more. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. I can't find any sources I feel meet WP:SIRS, and therefore this article doesn't meet WP:GNG nor any other applicable notability guideline. Jacona ( talk) 00:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per above lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 09:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 ( talk) 15:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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.