Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAKO (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. Sandstein 08:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PAKO (video game)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. The poor quality references don't establish significant coverage, nor do they confirm much of the text which reads like a self-written game review, so I suspect WP:OR. Derek Andrews (talk) 14:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Plenty of reviews on Pako 2 given a flick through the news section in a BEFORE google search, as well as the critic links in metacritic (one needs a google translate). Certainly enough to satisfy WP:GNG, as well as WP:NVG for those that like it.

These refs are all for Pako 2, and I'd suggest a name-change, post a keep !vote in AfD. Regarding the WP:OR claim - I think that might be hard to demonstrate sufficiently. There are WP:PROMO aspects, and it clearly isn't smoothly written, but neither of those is grounds for deletion. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 22:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:NVG. I didn't see any promotional aspect to the writing, but the grammar was poor and I've since revised it. By the way, I moved the page from it's original title to PAKO 2 (video game). Nanophosis (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep https://toucharcade.com/2014/08/22/pako-car-chase-simulator-review/ is a review for the first game written in 2014, but the title is now changed to talk about the second game that came out in 2017. The metacritic entry http://www.metacritic.com/game/ios/pako-2 is for the second game. Do the four review sites it mentions there count as reliable sources? The article at the time it was nominated for deletion was about both games. I think the name should be changed back, and just have both games there since you have references for both of them, and they are similar. Dream Focus 19:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The sources look mainy like user generated content to me. --Derek Andrews (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: agreeing with Nanophosis, article seems to pass WP:NVG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it has reliable source. Mayamaya7 Poke! 08:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established, since coverage is routine (ie having a game review does not make it notable). Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 03:11, 15 June 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.