Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mystery Case Files: Key to Ravenhearst (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect to Mystery Case Files. And selective merge Spartaz Humbug! 06:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery Case Files: Key to Ravenhearst (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)

Other than press releases, blogs, and trivial mentions, no in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to show notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 16:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merging sucks, and would create an article called List of Mystery Case Files games. Most of the Game are notables, but for Wikipedia no. Because it’s Casual Playing (Gaming it’s not a real word) it'S not notable for wikipedia and all site that speak of it are automatically unreliables. So delete and creating a new article about all games is better. Same thing with Ravenhearst Unlocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frapril (talkcontribs) 14:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand Wikipedia's policies on notability. Either the game passes notability criteria, or it doesn't. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we understand. 205.236.230.30 (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Striking off duplicate suggestion per WP:DISCUSSAFD. -The Gnome (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because that was tried already and became too complicated to gain consensus. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:14, 30 July 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.