Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Pharma (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. Sam Walton (talk) 09:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Big Pharma (game)

Big Pharma (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 06:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not an article. Advertising. Not notable. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC) Changing to weak delete on grounds of notability. Hithladaeus (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article we read today is much different from the one nominated for deletion. In particular, the most offensive violations of policy are gone. Although the debate has turned up sources, I'm having trouble. People say that AfD isn't clean up, but it is articles for deletion, not "concepts" for deletion, and if people argue to keep an article because the concept is valid, they're arguing fallaciously, in my opinion. There still aren't iRS of notability given in the article. Hithladaeus (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2015 (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) 16:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unfortunately, I think I'm leaning more towards delete for now and maybe draft to userspace as my searches only found this (News links) and this (some reviews from Rock Paper Shotgun and PCGamer). It's gotten some coverage but nothing significant. SwisterTwister talk 21:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, although it'll probably be remade when it's more notable. --Anarchyte 06:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't think notability is an issue for this game anymore. There are serval big Youtube Channels such as NerdCubed, Sips, Northernlion, and EnterElysium had done videos for this game, and had got considerable amounts of views on them.Kdmjf12000 (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those YouTube channels are all examples of self-published sources which in general fail Wikipedia's criteria for reliablity, so they can't be used to establish notability. The1337gamer (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Was about to close this as consensus to delete but there is plenty of meaningful coverage in a video game reliable sources custom Google search:

There is significant coverage from reliable, independent sources (?) and more than enough material with which to write an article. @Boleyn, Wikimandia, Hithladaeus, SwisterTwister, Anarchyte, Kdmjf12000, and The1337gamer – czar 19:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Czar. Another useful source also: [1] --The1337gamer (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is sufficient coverage identified above to establish notability per the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 07:23, 14 June 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.