Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W.I.T.C.H. (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

W.I.T.C.H. (video game)[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)

Appears to fail WP:GNG and is non-notable. Perhaps could be mentioned in the series page, but does not merit its own article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources from WP:VG/RS such as 4Players [1], Jeuxvideo.com [2] and es:Meristation [3] (per the Wiki page seems to be a game magazine since 1997) is just above the threshold, meeting WP:GNG. At worst, this should be merged to W.I.T.C.H#Video game, but deletion isn't the way to go here. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- 4Players wasn't mentioned in WP:VG/S at all, while Meristation is under "inconclusive" after a number of discussions, with consensus being that that site alone should not be enough to push an article over the edge to notability._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @User:Zxcvbnm: Not being mentioned on Wikipedia is not a valid argument for excluding a source. We are not limited to using sources that have been vetted on some noticeboard. New sources for Wikipedia are being found literally every day. Modernponderer (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A source that has its own Wikipedia article is presumed to contribute to notability, absent a strong community consensus. Therefore, the 4Players and Jeuxvideo.com articles satisfy WP:GNG. While other citations provided may be questionable for various reasons, that's already enough for the "multiple independent reliable sources" requirement.

Also oppose invalid nomination as there is an obvious merger target and the material is obviously encyclopedic, so there is no valid rationale for deletion (as opposed to merging) here regardless of notability. Modernponderer (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jovanmilic97's sources. Toughpigs (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agree with Jovanmilic97. Danny157 (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Jovanmilic97. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2020 (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.