Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deathmatch Village

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 redirect to Bloober Team. czar 21:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deathmatch Village[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)

Does not meet WP:GNG, provided coverage is routine and largely non-independent. According to Metacritic it was never reviewed by a professional publication. An internet search didn't turn up anything to the contrary. This was previously a redirect to the developer, Bloober Team. Given the brevity of the mention there, either deletion or restoring the redirect could be appropriate. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a disclaimer I am the author of the article. The nom says that the article does not meet WP:GNG, however the game has been covered by Pocket Gamer, EuroGamer, neither of which were related to the article and were non-trivial mentions. Yes, it was a sxmall game that did not receive favorable reviews but I think the sources I added after the deletion nomination show that mention of the game is non-trivial especially in the context of its cross-play feature, which was not something that existed at the time in many other games, if any. Having a MetaCritic review is not part of the WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The additional coverage in Digitally Downloaded, [1], is significant (although I'm not familiar with the source. The rest of the coverage is routine pre-release coverage that shouldn't be used to establish notability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to Bloober Team. Just like Rosguill has said, the only actual significant coverage this game received was in Digitally Downloaded. VG24/7, Eurogamer and Pocket Gamer's sources are all WP:ROUTINE coverage of the game's announcement, mostly being the retellings of the press releases, something that happens for the majority of video games pre-release (VG24/7 and Eurogamer ones wouldn't count anyways because they aren't significant coverage). I've looked a lot around in my WP:BEFORE, but I wasn't able to find any reviews or even previews that would count for something. Thus, this game fails WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What part of that falls under WP:ROUTINE? Announcing a game with a feature that did not currently exist is not routine coverage, nor does the coverage fall within anything listed in WP:ROUTINE. Pocket Gamer in particular is also signficant coverage per WP:SIGCOV. It may be that you don't feel there's *enough* there to make a full, long article, but that's not the same as being trivial. The coverage in Pocket Gamer is not trivial; it is by-the-book significant coverage as defined by Wikipedia policy. This would be a trivial mention; an article completely dedicated to the game is not trivial. - Aoidh (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bloober Team. I understand that Metacritic do not include critics which do not score their reviews, like the English Eurogamer which stopped using scores a few years ago, but reception are still in my view essential for a standalone article in any event. The cross-play feature the article creator mentioned is notable, but it can still be covered on the developers' page as an achievement. The issue I see here is not whether reviews are mostly positive or negative, but that there is hardly any indication of its reception at all except for one negative review, so this article if kept as a standalone may be a WP:permastub with no prospects of expansion....unless of course if there is a language barrier issue (existing credible reviews exclusively in Polish), or if it gets re-released for current gen and gets some substantial coverage. Haleth (talk) 09:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while most of the coverage is pre-release, there is still one review from Digitally Downloaded, which is listed as a reliable source at WP:VG/RS. A merge to Blooper Team would be OK I suppose, but really the amount of content that you could create with the current sourcing would unbalance that article, and given how this article does pass GNG, I think it would be better if it remained standalone. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Devonian Wombat Problem is that it doesn't pass WP:GNG, as pre-release coverage isn't significant in depth, plus it's WP:ROUTINE on top of it. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned, pre-release coverage is SIGCOV all the same. I consider WP:ROUTINE irrelevant to this discussion, since this is not an event. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've added a few more sources to the article, trying to use Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources as a guide for what to include. As it's a Polish company I included a source from GRYOnline.pl, which is listed in as a reliable source. I don't speak Polish so i had to machine-translate what was said as well as another Polish article which spoke about the number of downloads shortly after release, which discussed how the game seemed far more popular in Europe than in the United States based on downloads. - Aoidh (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to fix the url of the Polish websites you linked. I got "Po niemal 10 latach prac mod Stalker: Call of Pripyat's Gunslinger doczekał się grywalnej wersji" when I accessed the link you added, when I was expecting to see a writeup about Deathmatch Village. Haleth (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect (to Bloober Team) per nom. One review and some WP:RUNOFTHEMILL news is not enough for significant coverage. IceWelder [✉] 09:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bloober Team: This information is basically already in the target; its entirely a redundent CFORK, there is really nothing to merge. // Timothy :: talk 15:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 06:14, 9 January 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.