Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naraka: Bladepoint

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. RL0919 (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naraka: Bladepoint[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)

Naraka Bladepoint

Game that does not satisfy game notability or software notability. Has one reference, which appears to be an independent review, but is in an audience-supported webmag. An article should speak for itself. This article has empty Development and Release sections and is not a useful stub.

Moving this article to draft space would be in order, except that there is already a draft in draft space, which has been declined both as reading promotionally and as duplicating this article. Neither the draft nor the article is ready for article space. The draft has tone issues and does not establish notability. The article does not establish notability and does not have enough information for a stub. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Draft:Naraka: Bladepoint reads a bit promotional (possible G11 tag?), but I think this should have been moved to Draft: Naraka: Bladepoint 2 (indicating a 2nd draft) before coming to AfD regardless. WP:BEFORE brings tons and tons of non-trivial coverage of the game: Tom's Guide that's referenced in the article right now, GameSpot [1], NME [2], PC Gamer [3], PCGamesN [4], Jeuxvideo.com [5], Rock Paper Shotgun [6], Multiplayer.it [7], IGN Italy [8], 4Gamer.net [9], Edge (magazine) [10], Shack News [11]. The game easily meets WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve per WP:NEXIST. A convenient litmus test to determine whether a game is subject to enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG is whether they have a Metacritic score, which requires a minimum of four reviews for each relevant platform. At the time of writing, it has ten reviews, five of which are from undisputedly reliable sources according to WP:VG/RS. Article content does not determine the notability of the subject. Haleth (talk) 12:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not enough references. GamedevExpert^{(Talk to GamedevExpert)} 5:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Keep per Haleth. Kou Dou 22:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A plethora of sources exists and is easily found via WP:VG/SE. The article needs to be rewritten and expanded, not deleted. IceWelder [✉] 14:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there are easily enough sources. This article needs expansion, not deletion.Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:04, 29 August 2021 (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.