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 intent of this is not to be
WP:BITEy with a new editor, but they did move the draft to mainspace themselves rather than go through
WP:AFC so I think it's fair game. I am reasonably certain this game fails
WP:GNG, with the only two reliable sources with significant coverage being PC Gamer and Siliconera, with Siliconera being the only real review. GameGrin/Noisy Pixel are considered unreliable by
WP:VG/S and the reliability of The Boss Rush Network seems doubtful. Obviously it's not a commentary on the quality of the game, it's simply objectively stating it is not notable enough for a page.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
07:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - I don't consider PC Gamer as significant coverage since it mostly quotes user reviews and the developer, and has very little of the writer's own commentary. Siliconera is reliable and SIGCOV but 1 article is not enough to meet GNG. --
Mika1h (
talk)
13:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I totally agree with ThanatosApprentice's first sentence, the template could've been put up. I don't get what the nom means by
WP:BITEing a "new editor" as the creator of the article seems pretty experienced. The PC Gamer article and Siliconera articles are pretty reliable, the others... not so much. The article doesn't meet
WP:GNG. The plot section is completely
WP:UGC. MKat your service.15:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Placing a notability tag on a new article after a due
WP:BEFORE is just deferring the issue. And the editor is rather experienced like you point out, so they know moving to mainspace might result in AFD (Generally I think if they may like to continue working on it, re-draftify and insist submitting to AFC).
IgelRM (
talk)
23:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I'll admit that the sources could have been a little beefier, but I still think there's enough here that full-on deletion wouldn't be warranted. I'd instead suggest applying the
Template:Notability tag for the time being.
I believed that tagging it wouldn't really be able to change anything; from a detailed search I couldn't find more sources. Obviously, if you know of any better ones that exist, make them be known.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
21:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Redraftify If this article's deletion is completely unavoidable, I'd at least like to request that it be moved back into the draft namespace so I can continue bringing it up the standard if it receives more significant coverage.
ThanatosApprentice (
talk)
18:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
You are best off saving the article locally; such as in a txt file of some kind; drafts are for articles that have already been proven notable and they will be deleted after a certain period of time if not published.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
19:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any more support for draftification. We could use a few more participants here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!07:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. The title has sufficient coverage for general notability, independently from whether or not it it was pushed out of draft space early.
Cortador (
talk)
13:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: PC Gamer and Silicon Era are fine for sources, Silicon Era is a bit lighter on coverage, but with everything else present, article is ok.
Oaktree b (
talk)
14:43, 30 June 2024 (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.
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 intent of this is not to be
WP:BITEy with a new editor, but they did move the draft to mainspace themselves rather than go through
WP:AFC so I think it's fair game. I am reasonably certain this game fails
WP:GNG, with the only two reliable sources with significant coverage being PC Gamer and Siliconera, with Siliconera being the only real review. GameGrin/Noisy Pixel are considered unreliable by
WP:VG/S and the reliability of The Boss Rush Network seems doubtful. Obviously it's not a commentary on the quality of the game, it's simply objectively stating it is not notable enough for a page.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
07:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - I don't consider PC Gamer as significant coverage since it mostly quotes user reviews and the developer, and has very little of the writer's own commentary. Siliconera is reliable and SIGCOV but 1 article is not enough to meet GNG. --
Mika1h (
talk)
13:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I totally agree with ThanatosApprentice's first sentence, the template could've been put up. I don't get what the nom means by
WP:BITEing a "new editor" as the creator of the article seems pretty experienced. The PC Gamer article and Siliconera articles are pretty reliable, the others... not so much. The article doesn't meet
WP:GNG. The plot section is completely
WP:UGC. MKat your service.15:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Placing a notability tag on a new article after a due
WP:BEFORE is just deferring the issue. And the editor is rather experienced like you point out, so they know moving to mainspace might result in AFD (Generally I think if they may like to continue working on it, re-draftify and insist submitting to AFC).
IgelRM (
talk)
23:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I'll admit that the sources could have been a little beefier, but I still think there's enough here that full-on deletion wouldn't be warranted. I'd instead suggest applying the
Template:Notability tag for the time being.
I believed that tagging it wouldn't really be able to change anything; from a detailed search I couldn't find more sources. Obviously, if you know of any better ones that exist, make them be known.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
21:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Redraftify If this article's deletion is completely unavoidable, I'd at least like to request that it be moved back into the draft namespace so I can continue bringing it up the standard if it receives more significant coverage.
ThanatosApprentice (
talk)
18:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
You are best off saving the article locally; such as in a txt file of some kind; drafts are for articles that have already been proven notable and they will be deleted after a certain period of time if not published.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
19:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any more support for draftification. We could use a few more participants here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!07:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. The title has sufficient coverage for general notability, independently from whether or not it it was pushed out of draft space early.
Cortador (
talk)
13:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: PC Gamer and Silicon Era are fine for sources, Silicon Era is a bit lighter on coverage, but with everything else present, article is ok.
Oaktree b (
talk)
14:43, 30 June 2024 (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.