Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casino Tycoon (video game)

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. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casino Tycoon (video game)

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

Non-notable video game. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not much reliable secondary coverage that I could find. An IGN review and that's about it. Adam9007 (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's got an entry at Metacritic with a few reviews, including [1] at IGN (mentioned above) and an offline review from Computer Gaming World. Metacritic also links to [2] from Adrenaline Vault, but this seems to be a review for Casino Mogul, a different game from the same developer. Besides that, in a WP:VG/RS Google custom search, I see two non-English reviews: [3] from fr:Jeuxvideo.com and [4] from nl:Gamer.nl. Since the CGW review snippet doesn't mention Casino Tycoon and Metacritic apparently linked the wrong game with the Adrenaline Vault review, I did a Google Books search to see if Google digitized the CGW issue. Fortunately, it did come up in a search, but it's only a snippet view: [5]. I think that's probably enough to establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I concur with NinjaRobotPirate based on the new sources offered. The article is in great need of expansion, though. This should have been created as a draft until it was ready for mainspace... -Thibbs (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to developer Monte Cristo Multimedia. Four middling reviews with no depth on Development or any other sources at all isn't enough to warrant a separate article on the subject. Everything that needs to be said can be done within a section of its parent, which needs expansion. czar 00:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Why must we merge or redirect everything these days? Four full reviews on a game is more than enough for it to have its own article, considering two is the absolute minimum amount needed, per WP:GNG. Just because it can just have a section in its parent article, doesn't mean it should. If there were next to no coverage available, I could understand, but that's not the case here. Kokoro20 (talk) 08:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reviews shown above by NinjaRobotPirate establish notability. Merging this game and all others of similar notability to Monte Cristo Multimedia would made that page too big anyway. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:57, 23 July 2016 (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.