Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Class of '09 (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 delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Class of '09 (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)

Completely unsourced page and no reliable sources come up in a WP:BEFORE search. This game is an absolute WP:N failure in every regard. Additionally, it was moved to draftspace due to the zero sources present, but was moved back into mainspace by the creator anyways. λ NegativeMP1 18:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. λ NegativeMP1 18:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources exist, like at all. The best I could find was one review on some random person's blog (the one singular review on Metacritic I might add). The lack of inline citations or really any citations at all makes this an original research nightmare. --StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is what you were refering to, but the review on Metacritic does not appear to be a personal blog. Regardless this article will probably need a complete rewrite at least (and there are few sources, even thought it has blown up recently) but I think this should be noted. Totalibe (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No substance to suggest general notability at all. One of the most impressively excessive cases of WP:GAMECRUFT I've seen in a while. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to fail WP:GNG. Even if a review from a reliable source randomly came up, that still wouldn't be enough, it's simply far too minor for Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't an advertising tool. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only RS mention I could find was one brief post from Pocket Gamer. It seems like the game actually did fairly well, but visual novels tend to not get much RS coverage, so I'm not particularly surprised by the lack of sources. CurlyWi (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Even if it passes WP:GNG I will just recommend completely WP:TNT-ing it. OceanHok (talk) 15:57, 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.