- 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Woodle Tree Adventures
- Woodle Tree Adventures ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find video game sources: "Woodle Tree Adventures" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)
Fails WP:GNG. A quick Google search does not bring up WP:VG/RS, only Metacritic. Soetermans. T / C 15:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Weak Delete I was able to find this magazine review, but the notability of the game and the company who made it is still questionable. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 20:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as a non-notable video game failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. I see some directory entries, but nothing substantial. I'm unsure above the above source -- the magazine is self-published and I cannot find any editorial information. — HELLKNOWZ ▎ TALK 22:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The game has been featured on a lot of important websites, such as IGN Italy
http://it.ign.com/woodle-tree-pc/64626/review/woodle-tree-super-mario-3d-land-per-pc, Game FAQS
http://www.gamefaqs.com/pc/805522-woodle-tree-adventures, PC Rating
https://pcmrating.com/games/woodle-tree-adventures, Nintendo Enthusiast
http://nintendoenthusiast.com/interview/woodlee-tree-adventures-inspired-nintendo-90s-sm64-particular/, Spaziogames
http://www.spaziogames.it/recensioni_videogiochi/console_multi_piattaforma/14905/woodle-tree-adventures.aspx, PC Gaming Wiki
http://pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Woodle_Tree_Adventures . On Arstechnica The game was one of the most popular games #152 on Steam in 2014
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/03/steam-gauge-measuring-the-most-popular-steam-games-of-2014/3/ . Moreover, the game requires a description in the Humble Bundle games lists
/info/en/?search=List_of_Humble_Bundles
MalboMX
- Comment (copied from my reply at other deletion discussion) GameFAQs, PC Rating, Nintendo Enthusiast and Spaziogames are not a WP:VG/RS, even if you would consider them to be "important". Wikipedia cannot be the source for itself. There can still be a description of the game in the Humble Bundle games list, even without an article. IGN is a reliable source, but IGN Italy isn't listed at WP:VG/RS either. WP:POPULARITY is not synonymous with notability (and don't think being the 152nd most played game in 2014 on Steam is any indicator of popularity to begin with). -- Soetermans. T / C 11:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, but Ars Technica is listed in the Video Game Sources of Wikipedia /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources with over 100.000 copies sold on Steam and 500.000 active players. The game is on GiantBomb too http://www.giantbomb.com/woodle-tree-adventures/3030-46675/, furthermore it's not possible to add description on the Humble Bundle games list, so a proper page should be necessary MalboMX
- [1] is probably good, but none of the others are. The sources for GNG need to be 1) reliable, 2) independent, and 3) in-depth. Not one or two, but all three. Only IGN IT fits this assuming we consider non-English version of IGN reliable. — HELLKNOWZ ▎ TALK 13:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) I'd give my benefit of the doubt to the Italian IGN and Spazio sites, but I know little about their editorial standards. Still, the rest is unreliable (or mentioned in passing) and there isn't enough coverage to write an article. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ ping}} me. czar 20:11, 20 February 2016 (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.