Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spellcross

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. (non-admin closure) versacespace leave a message! 15:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spellcross[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)

Article admits this game was obscure, and a BEFORE identifies no sourcing to establish notability. The claim of the most significant game to come from Slovakia is sourced to a blog with the person quoted having no obvious status or facts on which this is based. StarM 19:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. StarM 19:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. StarM 19:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will add references from two-page review in contemporary (and well-regarded) gaming magazine, Pelit. --Kiz o r 19:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added, alongside a contemporary Slovakian magazine, so I !vote to Keep. StarM, the article's sourcing was indeed lacking and the fault is mine. Apologies for making you bother with an old mistake of mine. I think the article now passes muster, so if you agree, would you be willing to withdraw, please? I've had some bad experiences with AfDs, and though you've been entirely polite, would still feel better not having to wait for this one to close. --Kiz o r 14:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while they don't help the article as it now stands, these reviews can be extremely useful in developing it in the future. --Kiz o r 16:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to withdraw, Kizor, as I'm not certain whether some of these sources meet general reliable source guidelines and would like others to weigh in. Thank you for improving the article. If it is notable, I'm sure the discussion will close in that favor. StarM 15:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The video games wikiproject curates a list of sources evaluated by the community and considered reliable. Pelit is considered reliable, as are Power Unlimited, GameStar and PC Games out of the reviews quoted on MobyGames. Riki Multimedia Magazine and this review are not listed one way or the other. This certainly satisfies me, in particular since the best way to determine reliability that I can think of would be to have more community discussions. What about you? --Kiz o r 19:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The above two reviews are not significant coverage but together with those nine magazine reviews listed at MobyGames, there is plenty of source material for this topic. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 18:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The reason is that this is a product, and WP:NPRODUCT is a subset of NCORP and it is expected that they follow the same CORPDEPTH and ORGIND requirements like businesses. If there is an appropriate merge target, I am perfectly fine with WP:ATD and merge into one of those. Graywalls (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The existing sources are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Further sources are also likely to exist though they may not be in English. Also, the suggestion that WP:NPRODUCT applies is not correct but is also beside the point because GNG is clearly met here. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable video game passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS-compatible magazines identified above. Power Play, Gamestar, PC Games, etc. are all reliable contemporary publications (and most can be accessed with Internet Archive). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. There is third party sources that cover this. It’s a little thin but enough for a stand alone article. No valid merge target. Reception section is enough to pass AFD but I would like to see it expanded for quality. Archrogue (talk) 17:20, 16 May 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.