Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cypher (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. postdlf (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cypher (video game)[edit]
- Cypher (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lack of sources, lack of notoriety.
The game has no notoriety. As the editor doesn't publish sales statistics, as the press doesn't speak of the game, I tried to guess notoriety by alternative means. During this search, it appears: (1) it doesn't get a nomination at the Independent Games Festival or any notorious indie gaming manifestation. (2) the game isn't available in torrent on The Pirate Bay or other popular trackers, whereas the smallest notorious indie games could be found (3) there are only 80 000 views on the first YouTube video returned by Google (versus 1.6 millions for the first Deus Ex Human Revolution video).
There are 16 sources on the article, 2 comprehensive reviews, 4 self-references, the other ones very short reviews. The 12 links seems to be the comprehensive directory of reviews about this game on the net. As such, even if 10 websites have reviewed the game, this is only temporary, and as such, WP:N#TEMP doesn't seem to be met.Dereckson (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - those two "comprehensive reviews" you mention are enough to bring it above the bar IMO. Everything else you say isn't really a reason for deletion. Ansh666 01:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Not sure I follow the nom. He acknowledges all of the sources in the article, then links to WP:NOTTEMP and that somehow makes it so it doesn't meet the WP:GNG? Regardless, this game definitely has the coverage to have it meet the GNG. Significant coverage from sources that have been deemed reliable through consensus at WP:VG/RS includes:
-
- I can keep going if necessary, but seriously, there is plenty of coverage out there. Sergecross73 msg me 02:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Bad nomination. Seriously, if you believe some of the reviews are comprehension, then obviously it meets the general notability guidelines. Plenty of reliable sources do cover this. Nominator is advised to learn how Wikipedia works before making more pointless deletion nominations. Dream Focus 02:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Yes, some indie games get more coverage, but the sources that Sergecross show that there was clear secondary coverage of the game by reliable video game web sites and thus meets the GNG with no problem. We do have to be careful with indie games as they are a dime a dozen and often self-promoted but this is not that type of case. --MASEM (t) 16:02, 5 September 2013 (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.