Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Town of Salem (2nd 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 Delete. Hut 8.5 16:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Town of Salem[edit]

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

Article contains only information found from primary sources and not enough verifiable sources to meet the requirements of WP:NGAME. I also have no opposition to a rewrite, neither to merging some, if not all of this article's content, into Mafia (party game) as the game appears to be based around the concept. A previous AfD shared similar concerns. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 17:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ The article's reference section shows numerous secondary reliable sources. The article is a mess of WP:GAMECRUFT but I'm about to fix that. WP:NGAMES is an essay and was never adopted as a policy. -- ferret (talk) 02:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The existence of secondary sources which talk about Town of Salem at length have established this game's notability. The article needs an overhaul, but notability isn't the central issue here. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 03:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. Newimpartial (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC) 16:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, did this game have a single reliable review (WP:VG/RS)? I don't see the depth of coverage—the article's almost all primary refs. Cite your sources? czar 22:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article is mostly primary sources, and this is why the nomination per WP:GNG. I do not know of any reviews for this game. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 22:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see reviews on unreality magazine and boardgamegeek, don't I? Did you do a WP:BEFORE? Newimpartial (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be confusing reviews for the card game based on the game, rather than the game itself._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True re: boardgamegeek, but unreality and n00bist are reviewing the game. Newimpartial (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 13:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It has no Metascore, and most of the sources are either primary sources (developer's website, press releases), or quick mentions of the game without significant commentary. The reviews it does have are from non reliable sources (small review sites)._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - This article contains only primary sources, as said above. MirroredMinds 10:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.70.239.122 (talk) [reply]
- I'm not worried about this being deleted, I was "weak" at best on keeping it, but this is not a true statement. The article has several non-primary sources. They are weak and don't necessarily show significant coverage, but they are non-primary. -- ferret (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No depth of coverage in the sources presented—not nearly enough to do justice to the topic. Other than PocketGamer's short news, the USN and Forbes are blurbs and the rest are press releases or primary sources. For reviews, "Unreality mag" is not a reliable source and I doubt "Board Game Geek" would be either, but its only review is user-created... The coverage isn't significant, and there isn't enough material to write an article. I don't see a suitable redirect target either. czar 16:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've striken my weak keep after re-reading through the non-primary sources and attempting to find others. Agree with Czar at this point. My comment WP:NGAMES still stands though. -- ferret (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've struck my keep, also, after the discussion of sources, though "AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP" is still true where it applies. Also, I don't have the impression that WP:NGAME differs on sourcing from the WP:GNG; mostly it offers advice on sequels and compilations, advice which doesn't really apply here. Newimpartial (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2017 (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.