Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fear and Hunger

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fear and Hunger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I say Keep, as I believe the game as garnered further notoriety between the time of the deletion discussion and now. The page is adequately sourced and it has been established that it is notable. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't really see why this page should be deleted. I was unaware that a previous Fear and Hunger article had been deleted, but I think another discussion should be had on whether this article deserves to be deleted. It is my opinion that the multiple articles from Rock Paper Shotgun, CBR, and DualShockers all fall under WP:GNG. I think another discussion should be had on whether it does or does not fall under WP:GNG. I don't think they're the strongest sources in the world but I've definitely seen Indie game articles that have been kept on far shakier grounds --NimoEdit (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete @Pyraminxsolver: AfD is for when you want an article to be deleted, not kept. Nevertheless the article should still be deleted, as the notability has not changed since the previous AfD held mere months ago. It fails WP:GNG with most sources not being from WP:RS. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. DualShockers is situational, the most recent discussion[1] is pretty promising, and the author of these two pieces[2][3] is a professional journalist in the entertainment industry. Those plus RPS should suffice for GNG. And note that one of those DualShockers pieces is new since the last AfD, so the coverage is indeed deeper now than a couple months ago. —siroχo 05:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Even assuming we count DualShockers as a reliable source, per WP:GNG, "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." The second one is also about a totally different game, the sequel. So we'd preferably need one other source, and CBR is simply a content farm. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the combination of the first DualShockers source and the Rock Paper Shotgun article is enough to just barely pass WP:GNG. Zxcvbnm is correct that if it were just the two DS articles this wouldn't be notable, but the combination of the first one with RPS is enough to showcase notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's incredibly rare that 2 reviews would be considered GNG passing, especially when one of them is from a situational source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have added 3 additional non-english reviews, all of which I believe should pass WP:RS. Surely this should be considered enough to pass GNG? NimoEdit (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not every source that is published on the internet passes WP:RS - there are massive amounts of unreliable sites. That said, The Games Machine is an unequivocal reliable source. This still does not, IMO, put it over the edge into notability, though it does help. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still unclear why the nominator is making an argument for Keeping this article. Still, there is an editor advocating Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Found a news article from Finnish magazine MikroBitti but it's paywalled: [4] --Mika1h (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are just about enough RS to keep this article. I don't have access to Mikro Bitti articles, but it nevertheless contributes to the game's notability. Cortador (talk) 08:11, 19 September 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.