The result was no consensus. This is a pretty messy discussion, with the majority of opinion being very tentative preferences in one direction or the other. Given the split is almost down the middle, the fact there is a legitimate difference of opinion about whether SIGCOV is met, and the fact this has been relisted a wild 4 times just to get to this point, I think this is the most appropriate close. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 00:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
I used the PROD process and it was reverted, so I am taking this to AFD as the next logical step. My comment was: No reliable independent sources to provide WP:SIGCOV. WP:BEFORE shows that this does not even have reviews on Metacritic, which would be the minimum. Jontesta ( talk) 05:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
teaser trailer, being dependent on quotes, and then proceeds to a gameplay-only summary. I don't think it's WP:SIGCOV, whether it's a WP:RS is also debatable. VickKiang (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting a rare 4th time (sorry for this). My close of Delete was challenged at the beginning of January and I agreed to relist it without realizing that the discussion was already relisted three times. But I offered so I'm relisting this to let a different administrator come to their own, independent decision on this discussion so that's what I'm doing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Source assessment table:
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
https://techraptor.net/gaming/reviews/pax-nova-review | ![]() |
~ Per WP:VG/RS TechRaptor is of inconclusive reliability. | ![]() |
~ Partial |
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/pax-nova-hybrid-4x-hex-strategy-debut | ![]() |
![]() |
~ It seems to be a preview with some information based on screenshots, which indicate routine coverage. However, there is some analysis and comparisons with other games, so this is IMO debatably WP:SIGCOV | ~ Partial |
https://www.destructoid.com/pax-nova-looks-like-a-beautiful-combination-of-stellaris-and-alpha-centauri/ | ![]() |
![]() |
~ Mainly gameplay recount (which is routine), but the author has some informal analysis | ✘ No |
https://www.ilvideogioco.com/2020/04/28/pax-nova-la-nostra-recensione/ | ![]() |
~ Participants in the recent VG/RS discussion had no clear consensus on reliability. Has a basic staff page with unclear indication of subject-matter-expertise, there is also no editorial policies. I would normally consider this as unreliable but given that another participant in the VGRS discussion found some WP:USEBYOTHERS there might be more in Italian, so I'm not writing this off as clearly unreliable but it's IMO a situational source. | ![]() |
~ Partial |
https://www.wargamer.fr/beyond-the-rift-prochain-dlc-pour-pax-nova/ | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
https://game-guide.fr/275917-pax-nova-le-chemin-vers-la-victoire/ | ![]() |
![]() © 2011-2021 - Association Clamidra - Wordpress. Wordpress blogs are generally unreliable unless clear editorial process or SME can be demonstrated, which is likely not the case. |
![]() |
✘ No |
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. |