Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokemon Clover

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. Can be userfied on request if new sources appear. Sandstein 20:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon Clover[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting General notability guidelines. No significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Aside from the Dorkly blurb, all sources are self-published or user-generated sites. When and if this game gets reliable third-party coverage, an article may be warranted. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable, third party sources. Fails the WP:GNG. Even Dorkly is considered unreliable per discussions at the WikiProject Video Games source board. Sergecross73 msg me 12:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 15:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing found with WP:VG/S's reliable and situational source search. Additionally, one of the three sources (Dorkly, the lone non-self published source), was supposedly considered unreliable earlier this year. NFL is Awesome (ZappaOMati) 18:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Draft and userfy again as it once was as there's enough for an article later if there's better sourcing and my searches found some at News and browser and thus there's no obvious need for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 6 October 2015 (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.