Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bliss (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--Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bliss (video game)[edit]

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

Does not introduce significant coverage in reliable sources; only introduces ONE, which is undoubtedly very insufficient. In addition, it provides no source for its main assertion of critical reception: having received mixed reviews. Fleet Command (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) MrKIA11 (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The Wired (magazine) review is presumably the one you refer to as the ONE. Try reviving the other links using archive.org. The game was even covered in a book [1], but in at most a page; exact coverage requires a trip to library. It's also reviewed on its CNET download page [2]. Pcap ping 17:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 17:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 17:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Pcap, for you honest attempt in finding coverages. But I am afraid an article requires significant coverage in reliable sources to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. The book has mentioned "Bliss" only once in a very passing mention, (and another time in the index!) CNET Download section also have received 11 votes and NO user reviews at all. Hence, although there is coverage, there is no significant coverage. Fleet Command (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The Wired review is 2 pages and in-depth; this seems significant to me. I was able to revive the Gamers Mark link; please review it to see if you think it's WP:RS. The other link http://www.lovingyou.com/content/lovegames/content.shtml?ID=13 was not found in yahoo cache (which did confirm that a link to the review had been listed there) or archive.org; the entire site seems to be having problems. The article needs cleanup - the reviews section appears to be using giftshops as references. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2010 (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.