Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life of Black Tiger (2nd nomination)

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 delete. I'm open to revisiting if better sourcing can be found. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Life of Black Tiger[edit]

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

Renominating for deletion, as the sole "keep" vote in the last AfD did not actually read my nomination, where I said that Jimquisition is not considered proof of notability per WP:VG/S. Therefore it still fails WP:GNG. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep please note, there was only one vote on the previous AfD, probably due to the 50+ Gaming AfDs ongoing. Disagreeing with the rational of a user is not usually a reason for re-listing. But anyway, there are two unquestionable RS; plus Tech Raptor, Voletic.com and Twinfinite, The Escapist, PC Games (Germany) all have articles on the game, due to it's poor port, and general poorness. Lee Vilenski(talk) 18:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A game needs more than 2 RS to pass WP:GNG and the Kotaku one isn't a substantial mention. None of those you mentioned are RS. They are all unreliable sources and the Escapist one is a random forum post by a random user. In any case, it wasn't relisted because I disagreed with the rationale, but because there was no consensus._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Eurogamer has written two articles about it, and Kotaku published one. (other sources mentioned above is not considered to be reliable according to WP:VG/RS) Mostly about the ethics of PlayStation Store promoting terrible games rather than talking about the game itself, so I don't think that these sources can justify the game's notability. We could probably merge this to PlayStation Store regarding quality control issues as well, but I don't see this as necessary given the weak coverage. AdrianGamer (talk) 09:42, 23 January 2018 (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.