- 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 keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 16:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
War of Rights
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- War of Rights ( | 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)
The article does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline, as there is only one significant reliable source available online ( Game Rant, which isn't high-quality). Metacritic shows zero reviews for the game. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- There is also a Vice article that counts toward notability. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Meets
W:GNG: the subject has independent and sufficient coverage in several languages (
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]) --
NoonIcarus (
talk)
16:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- @ NoonIcarus: Thanks for these links. I apologize for missing the Vice article—fascinatingly, I can't get it to show up on Google until I append the word "Vice" to the query.
- Vice clearly counts towards notability. It's a high-quality source with significant coverage. In addition, although it's not a high-quality source Game Rant likely counts as well. However, while Eurogamer is reliable, a three-paragraph update isn't significant coverage. I'm also not sure that any of the other sources count as reliable, particularly as they don't appear on VG/RS. Can you give more info on how they satisfy WP:RS?
- Keep: Plenty of sources, as shown by NoonIcarus above. Also,
WP:VG/RS says [about] Game Rant
is only unreliable for BLPs: "Topics of low potential for controversy such as general pop culture topics or game information are allowable areas." 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 17:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)- @ Ficaia: You've left out a pretty important part of that sentence. Game Rant isn't a high-quality source per VG/RS because that says "Consensus is that it is not a high quality source, to be treated with caution and excluded from BLP pages." (emphasis mine) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep there's also articles in MEL Magazine [12] and TechRaptor [13] that haven't been mentioned yet above.-- Jahaza ( talk) 20:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment
These
interviews
can
buff
out
the
article (although they don't contribute to the article's notability).
This article is also quite good.
Coin945 (
talk)
16:57, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Techraptor is considered an unreliable source by WPVG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 18:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Draftify WP:TOOSOON with insufficient reliable sources (as opposed to unreliable sources, which there are a lot of). 1.0 release may result in more reviews. Either way, the current state of it isn't ready for mainspace. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 18:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep thanks to sources from NoonIcarus. Vice and Eurogamer are good sources among others, and are sufficient with what the article has.
Archrogue (
talk)
14:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- If you are referring to this source, it is purely a news update, not WP:SIGCOV in the slightest, which was mentioned earlier in the discussion, ignoring that fact and proceeding as though it was is disingenuous. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 15:05, 25 August 2022 (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.