Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ignition (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. WP:SNOW keep. Reliable sources have been shown and AfD is not cleanup. (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ignition (video game)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:56, 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]- hahnch e n 19:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hahnchen, 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]
Keep. Mobygames lists 24 press reviews and many are from reliable sources. Phediuk (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found the Gamezone (Germany), PC Player (German magazine) and PC Games (magazine) reviews at [6], [7] and [8] (Moby says it was reviewed in the October issue, but it happened in the November one). I think it should pass WP:GNG now with PC Powerplay [9] , Computer and Video Games [10], Pelit [11] and Game.EXE [12]. All seem to be reliable per WP:VG/RS (except PC Player which never had a discussion there, but is likely reliable as well). Kind of surprising there is only 1 really in-depth review of this game in English, but every language is acceptable for GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

onel5969, would this be enough to withdraw the AfD? Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Jovanmilic97. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 03:11, 15 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.