Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Looping (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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looping (video game)

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. The sources currently used in the article are all patently unreliable (MobyGames, Mamedev.org, Video Game Critic, ConsoleClassix.com) and were added back by the original author against the advice of my talk page message. czar 03:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 04:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Websites may perhaps be generally considered unreliable, except when these particular references are examined, they contain firsthand sources and photographs/scans of reliable images, items, and publications. This is not following the totality of the sources used. There are cross-referenced details. Additionally, moving this article to mere draft status will prevent others from building and improving the article. Lastly, it is much easier to criticize and debase something than to correct its shortcomings.--SidP (talk) 04:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can someone improve on the article if they cannot access reliable sources on the topic? See our list of vetted video game sources to see the exact issues with the sources above. czar 05:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article is still questionable of independent notability at best, delete as the article, despite having a certain number of sources, is still questionably better. SwisterTwister talk 22:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No doubt it exists, but there it does not meet WP:N like this. A quick Google search does not bring up any additional RS'es. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:28, 1 April 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.