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.
Very poorly cited article. Due to the commonality of the name looking for sources was difficult, but searches in News and Books did not uncover enough in-depth coverage to show it meets
WP:GNG. Was a redirect, but another editor insists of page re-creation without any attempt at improvement.
Onel5969TT me18:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep - Significant coverage (multiple reviews) by reliable sources as listed by Mobygames.
[1] Other sources available with more research, such as this review in Russian magazine Games.EXE.
[2]-
hahnchen19:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)reply
CommentHahnchen,
WP:SIGCOV does not mean it is covered widely, but that there need to be multiple coverage in detail. I found a
PC Powerplay review
[3] that is in-depth and reliable. There is a paragraph on
Computer and Video Games[4] (with the coverage going very light on the game details, so I can't count this as something that adds to
WP:GNG). There is also a coverage on
Pelit that is in-depth at
[5]. Yes, there are reviews on Moby, but
WP:NRV says "the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition". I don't see the evidence that there is a significant coverage in those reviews (or if they are about that game), considering that reviews on Moby are added by users and there are no links (with some being unreliable). I may switch to a full keep if I see more, but for now I am undecided but leaning to keep (there are Pelit, PC Powerplay and Game.EXE).
Jovanmilic97 (
talk)
19:29, 13 July 2019 (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.
Very poorly cited article. Due to the commonality of the name looking for sources was difficult, but searches in News and Books did not uncover enough in-depth coverage to show it meets
WP:GNG. Was a redirect, but another editor insists of page re-creation without any attempt at improvement.
Onel5969TT me18:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep - Significant coverage (multiple reviews) by reliable sources as listed by Mobygames.
[1] Other sources available with more research, such as this review in Russian magazine Games.EXE.
[2]-
hahnchen19:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)reply
CommentHahnchen,
WP:SIGCOV does not mean it is covered widely, but that there need to be multiple coverage in detail. I found a
PC Powerplay review
[3] that is in-depth and reliable. There is a paragraph on
Computer and Video Games[4] (with the coverage going very light on the game details, so I can't count this as something that adds to
WP:GNG). There is also a coverage on
Pelit that is in-depth at
[5]. Yes, there are reviews on Moby, but
WP:NRV says "the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition". I don't see the evidence that there is a significant coverage in those reviews (or if they are about that game), considering that reviews on Moby are added by users and there are no links (with some being unreliable). I may switch to a full keep if I see more, but for now I am undecided but leaning to keep (there are Pelit, PC Powerplay and Game.EXE).
Jovanmilic97 (
talk)
19:29, 13 July 2019 (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.