Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panzermadels

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Panzermadels

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

I can only find one "reliable" source, and it's more of a joke article. Other than that all the sources are WP:PRIMARY. Therefore, it fails WP:GNG. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Which one did you feel was reliable? Sergecross73 msg me 00:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This one, which doesn't appear in the article, though I really don't think that it fulfills the "significant" criteria as it's really only a few sentences when you remove all the images._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, I had just wondered if you had been referring to a source in the article, because I didn't think any of them there would be a RS. Sergecross73 msg me 03:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of sources that meet the WP:GNG. Zero critic reviews at Metacritic doesn't instill confidence either. Sergecross73 msg me 03:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I mean, what do you mean by "unreliable". Let's take this one for instance. What, exactly, is false or wrong in that source. Does the entity not exist and they're just making it up? Is it not a tank dating simulator? Was it not developed by DEVGRU-P and released on March 9? Please be more specific about which statements in the source you challenge.

Sources are reliable or unreliable for specific uses. The Lancet is an excellent source for information on new medical procedures. For information on the development of Lacrosse in the 19th century it is not a good source. Similarly the sources in this article would not be good sources for information about quantum mechanics. For information about video games they are good sources, since that is their field of expertise.

And of course it's not true that a full review of a couple paragraphs is not significant. It is true that the text of the GNG is not very helpful here, with the examples being "The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM. Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that 'In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice' is plainly a trivial mention of that band" [insufficient to support an article on that band], while the vast space between these two cases is left for our judgement. But I mean the rule is "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" and it's stretching it quite a bit to equate a full two-paragraph review with a passing mention in part of a sentence. I think everyone would agree that the intent of the rule was not to deprecate full reviews, even short one.

There's also a quote from Brianna Wu, who is a significant person with a full article here. And I mean deleting this is going to put a big dent in our coverage of moe anthropomorphisms of military hardware, although we still have Kantai Collection. I don't see the win-win in that. Keep. Herostratus (talk) 07:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It seems you don't have a full understanding of what makes a source reliable or significant. A quote from Brianna Wu is not a significant reference, as it is only a single sentence on Twitter with no other context, and was not published in a secondary source. Thegg.net is certainly not a reliable source, as they reinterpreted an otherwise sarcastic quote as a feminist comment, then criticized her judgement and compared her to Anita Sarkeesian, showing they have no editorial standards or at least any common sense. TVTropes and VNDB and Kickstarter are either unreliable, or primary sources. And your final argument, is basically WP:ILIKEIT, and it's obvious why that can't be the sole criterion articles exist._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. This about covers all the ways I was going to point out how this "keep" rationale is invalid. Sergecross73 msg me 13:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sergecross/Zxcvbnm. --Izno (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - game has purportedly been out for a year and a half, but there's no media cover I can find in anything resembling mainstream press. The Egg is an opinion piece, and the other sites are user contributed. Fails WP:RS TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:37, 3 September 2017 (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.