Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Dreamer (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. Seems marginal, but most participants in the discussion believe the sources are sufficiently independent and reliable to support notability. RL0919 (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One Dreamer (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)

I am not seeing the sources required for the title to pass WP:GNG. Kotaku is the only publication that mentioned it in a detailed manner, while Adventure Gamers is just an announcement posting. Well Played is not mentioned in WP:VG/S, others are unreliable. Per GNG, "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." An article with a single instance of SIGCOV is insufficient. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the article creator, no resistance to deletion for GNG. I've taken a second look for sources and sadly this does seem to fall short of other sources of major coverage. I dont think Well Played is a particularly strong source, but would be interested what the convention is for assessing notability of coverage by websites not covered under WP:VG/S for future reference.

ly the Vrxces (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well basically if the notability hinges on an unclear source, you can post the source on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources and then ask for feedback on whether it is reliable prior to making the article.

In this case I still don't think it would be notable even if Well Played is reliable. However, given that the site describes itself as "a collective of gamers" rather than a true publication, I have serious doubts that it is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't pass the GNG. CastJared (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I was able to find some other sources: [1] [2] [3] - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indiegamesplus is not listed as reliable, Source #2 is an interview - primary source, and Source #3 is Kotaku, making both SIGCOV from the same place. I doubt people here would find Indiesgamesplus reliable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indiegamesplus is Indiegames, it's just a site rename after the website no longer had UBM. As for the interview, this is an example of an interview as a secondary source, posted on a reliable website by an independent author. Finally, Kotaku Australia is its own separate staff, so being the same website doesn't really matter, since I don't imagine a coordinated campaign occurred to get both branches to talk about it. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The question is: is the independent IndieGamesPlus still reliable after splitting from its owner? I don't think that's just an open and shut case for its reliability. I also don't think it's provable that Kotaku AU's writer was not inspired in any way from seeing the earlier Kotaku review when writing the list. They could very well have went over games Kotaku previously reviewed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The staff of IG and IGP are the same, and multiple discussions occurred about the change where editors affirmed that having the same EIC and staff was enough that they didn't need to reevaluate it. As for Kotaku, I feel like that's speculative, and not really any more relevant than if IGP was inspired by another article. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided by Cukie Gherkin. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cukie Gherkin. The article has improved thanks to the sources found. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2023 (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.