Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fear Effect Inferno

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 Fear Effect. Regardless of the actual number, Google hits cannot be used to establish notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fear Effect Inferno[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Canceled game of no particular notability. Full of original research due to the lack of coverage outside of a couple of mentions on gaming blogs. No independent google hits. Kuguar03 (talk) 05:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Goes to Fear Effect. Szzuk (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Google registers 53,900 hits when 'Fear Effect Inferno' is directly quoted (the use of " "). The artical is well written and the writer seems to have taken attention to detail. Although a little more sourcing could be done, I or anyone else could to that with so many direct hits. I will have to give this one a keep. Skullbird11 (talk) 12:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try again and you'll find <300 ghits. Szzuk (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, even more this time, 55,000. Skullbird11 (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here [1] Szzuk (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The .com Google search does show 50k+ hits [2]. Still, WP:GHITS states that's not a valid argument. That being said using Wikiproject Video games' reliable sources search turns up little more than landing pages (admittedly I only checked the first few pages of the search). --Teancum (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nominating 2 articles is hardly "quite a few". You're welcome to express your opinion in either, but I suggest you keep the discussion about the articles and familiarize yourself with arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Kuguar03 (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fear Effect with minor mention in its development section. Insignificant coverage to stand on its own. --Teancum (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:35, 27 February 2011 (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.