Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bayonetta

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The result was Nomination withdrawn . Non-admin closure. --SkyWalker (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bayonetta[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is in violation of WP:CRYSTAL and is speculating about a game that may or may not be released. In addition, in reading the article, it appears more like an advertisement than an encyclopediac description of the game and why it is notable. Lithorien (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn per Nifboy's reasoning. --Lithorien (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google News has 364 articles about this game listed within the last week; there are contests and other activities surrounding its pre-launch already up. I'd have to say that there's definitely enough in terms of reliable sources to assert notability on this one. WP:CRYSTAL would apply if there wasn't that kind of major buzz surrounding it. Keep Tony Fox (arf!) 20:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My only real objection to what I've found about the game is that, if you go strictly on coverage, ones like Duke Nukem Forever have had exponentially more coverage, and still don't even exist. And there's nothing that I've found to particularly say this game is groundbreaking and notable outside of just existing. And is that really how low our video game criteria should be? I'm not arguing one way or another, I'm just asking... how low is our threshold for notability for games? --Lithorien (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quoth our Notability guideline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Existence doesn't matter. "Groundbreaking" doesn't matter. All that really matters is that there's enough sources to write a half-decent article. Given that, our threshold is probably lower than you were expecting; we still keep stuff like Project H.A.M.M.E.R. around. Nifboy (talk) 04:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources in the article (GI, Gamespot, Brian Crecente) establish notability. That doesn't stop the article from sucking, though, so I'll probably take a chainsaw to the poorly-written gameplay section shortly. Nifboy (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Chainsaw has been taken to article. Discuss. Nifboy (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article appears like an advertisement but it does not violate the crystal policy. So what if it is cancelled it has got lot of source to back up and plus it far from being cancelled. This afd should be immediately closed and withdraw. --SkyWalker (talk) 07:47, 11 September 2009 (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.