Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Bastard's Tale

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. WP:SNOW keep, withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Bastard's Tale[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)

I was able to find two reviews: [1] and [2]. However, that is the extent of reliable or situational sources I could find covering the game in any significant detail, with even passing coverage being rare. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also only found the same two sources, and there aren't any suitable redirect or merger targets.--Alexandra^IDV 18:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to a very weak Keep thanks to the source found by ZXCVBNM--Alexandra^IDV 12:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep another review at Gaming Age here and other reviews linked at Metacritic here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I considered Gaming Age, but all discussions on their potential reliability suggest that content published after 2002 may not be reliable. As far as other Metacritic sources go, none of those are listed as reliable sources for use on Wikipedia. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Atlantic306: (edit conflict) Looking at WP:VG/RS classification and the past discussions linked there, Gaming Age isn't usable aside from possibly old material from before it split off from IGN in the early 00s. The other reviews listed on Metacritic (aside from the two Cukie mentioned) are either classed as unreliable (God is a Geek, Worth Playing, GameGrin) or haven't been classed at all (PlayStation Country, GameSpew). If this is going to have a chance, I think we would have to discuss PlayStation Country and GameSpew at WT:VG/RS, although the lack of an "about" page or similar on PlayStation Country, and GameSpew's self-description as a passion-project blog site, makes me doubtful that they could be considered reliable sources.--Alexandra^IDV 23:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A review from Softpedia should get it across the finish line in terms of notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep We very narrowly got there in the end with WP:THREE. Don't forget to make sure to add them in the article or used the sources found template! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandra IDV: What do you think now that there's a third RS review? I feel it may just barely squeak by, but since you !voted delete, I'd like your input before I withdraw. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cukie Gherkin: I think this article subject only just meets GNG with the absolute bare minimum of coverage, but yeah, struck my "delete".--Alexandra^IDV 12:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - All right then, withdrawn. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2024 (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.