Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fear & Hunger 2: Termina

Fear & Hunger 2: Termina

[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)

Fails WP:GNG with sources cited being unreliable or about the first game. A redirect to Fear & Hunger#Fear & Hunger 2: Termina would be a potential WP:ATD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Finland. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked through the sources cited, and all are either about the second game, or are include a section that's about the second game. I do agree that the sources are all unreliable though, and after a brief search couldn't find any better ones. N7fty (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how the sources are supposed to be unreliable when most of them come from major video game-specialized journals Médicis (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DualShockers is considered unreliable and a number of the others are from minor publications that can't be vetted for reliability. Destructoid is fine but simply not significant coverage able to support an article. Superjump is a tad better, but not a full review either, so I don't think I'd characterize it as SIGCOV. Ultimately, the page leans heaviest on an unreliable source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I first started this article last year with only three sources ([1]), two of which were not independent. Médicis has now done a good job in finding several other references, some of which I imagine come from other languages (fr), that demonstrate independent coverage and meets WP:GNG. I too have to ask how are the current references considered unreliable, when the User:Headbomb/unreliable.js script I have installed only highlights WhatCulture.com, although itch.io is still a primary source and some rationale has been provided for DualShockers.

The currently unreferenced content can be removed and there can be a clean up, but the article should be kept as a stand alone. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable.js isn't nearly a complete list of unreliable sources. Many aren't in the script, so I wouldn't rely on it as gospel. Furthermore, as I noted a main issue is also a lack of SIGCOV from reliable sources. I still believe that there is a total lack of significant coverage from reliable sources, especially compared to the first game. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree on what you said about the script's comprehensiveness, I'm not convinced that references should be considered unreliable only for being minor. Said publications can still be reviewed or even comparted to other sources on the same topics. The article by Super Jump Magazine covers the game exclusively, just like the deleted Gameland and Dark RPGs, the last of which is an interview that could still be linked in an External links section.

Ultimately, besides those, there are still plenty of independent sources that cover Fear & Hunger 2 and enough to cover WP:GNG, which is the reason I vote to keep the article. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:31, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Fear & Hunger. The article has some significant coverage, but falls slightly short on two levels: (1) the nature of the sources are not really those of the type that are covered in WP:VG/S. Although many are situational or unreviewed under that policy, a lot aren't really coming from editorial sites or games journalists that have experience working with those sties, which is both an indicia that those sites are not reliable and that the subject matter isn't really notable. Also; (2) there is some good evaluative coverage, but only the Dual Shockers source goes into any depth on general gameplay, so the article lacks the calibre of coverage that typically provides a decent overview of the facts around the game, particularly on gameplay. Together I think this is almost there, but doesn't have the typical kind of source I'd hope to see to feel comfortable - usually a solid review or in-depth article from an obviously reliable source. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:19, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]