Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon City (3rd nomination)

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Chompy Ace 14:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Dragon City[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)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NVG, references are 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are unreliable (1 is WP:UGC and WP:SPS, 2 is a blog, 3 and 4 are help supports, 5 is listed at WP:RSP which has no consensus of reliability, due to the Articles written by contributors may be subject to reduced or no editorial oversight). Chompy Ace 23:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 23:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As failing GNG... again... and WP:SALT to prevent further spurious recreation._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Devonian Wombat below, citing more atypical sources than the typical gaming journalism sites, it does seem that the game passes WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the other two times it was AfD'd. IceWelder [✉] 20:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this game passes WP:GNG, I found reviews of it in 148 Apps here, Adweek here GameZebo here and Common Sense Media here, the latter three are reliable, while the first one is a situational source. I will also note that the claim that this article "has been deleted twice already" is incorrect, while pages at this title have been deleted twice, the previous discussions were about a webcomic and a building respectively, not this game. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to developer Socialpoint. 148Apps has no editorial credentials or hallmarks of reliability. For those curious, here are Adweek's other app "reviews". Gamezebo is weak but fine. Common Sense Media is an advocacy org, which can be attributed for statements but their directory listing is not a sign of notability. It's fine to paraphrase the above workable sources into the parent article, though, like all of their other games. Nominators are asked to do find such alternatives to deletion before nominating articles for AfD. Courtesy pings @Zxcvbnm, IceWelder, Devonian Wombat, and Chompy Ace (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 21:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "is it any good" part seems like a review to me, not a "directory listing", which would imply that it just has its name, statistics and whatever._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with Czar on this. 148Apps is rated situational per WP:VG/RS and shouldn't count towards notability. Common Sense Media is merely a suitability rating for children, in terms of notability on par with an ESRB entry. I stand by my delete !vote; redirect/merge would be fine, although there is not much to merge here. IceWelder [✉] 22:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Common Sense Media is listed at WP:RSP as "generally reliable for entertainment reviews". While it does initially look like a suitability rating for children, there is an actual review in the "Is it any good section". The website is just formatted weirdly. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - CSM review allows it to pass notability. Article should be improved, but merging or deleting is unnecessary. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 23:22, 3 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.