Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ROSE Online (3rd 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 keep. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ROSE Online

[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)

Had a look at WP:NVG - this article does not feature:

sources that are newspapers, magazines, books, documentaries, websites, and consumer reports. Questionable reliability of the sources used in the article - much of the article is synopsis not supported by sources.
independent sources
Significant commentary should report more than basic game data (such as its title, platform, publisher, and creative staff). Commentary should be critical and detailed.

Also missing awards or information that goes beyond its existence. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note it was previously nominated for deletion twice - an extended number of years ago. The article has been targeted as not-notable since Dec 21. Previous discussions said it was notable because it was played a lot in the East and did not get traction in the west. Although reliable sources were mentioned in a previous deletion discussion - the quality of the coverage was not written or analysed.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources raised in previous discussions, which is convincing enough for me. Even if not currently on the article, the coverage is out there (and we don't have to have the sources presently on the article to see a topic is notable). Ss112 22:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gravity (Korean company)#ROSE Online Previous Keep outcomes were predicated on unreliable sources. The only reliable source I can find that is a review is the GameZone one, which is not enough to pass the bar of GNG. If it cannot even pass that low bar of 3 reliable reviews, I don't believe it should be a standalone article. Redirect as WP:ATD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Zxcvbnm. Searching the expanded name finds some other hits. Gry-Online has 4 articles about the game. That said, I otherwise could only find English press releases and directory entries. I don't believe the bar is met. There's very likely some Korean coverage, but our vetted list of Korean reliable sources is nearly non-existent. If reliable sources can be found, I may re-evaluate, but we can't assume they are out there. NEXIST doesn't require sources to be in the article, but it does require them to be found and noted, not simply assumed. Most of the sources in the 2nd AFD are either unreliable or non-secondary (Interviews). -- ferret (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I think Jovanmilic97 has dug up enough, along with the Gry Online articles, to meet GNG. I'd be more strongly keep if we had better vetting on the Korean sources, but I cannot vouch for their reliability at this time. -- ferret (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are some good sources in 4Gamer [1] and [2], and previous AFD uncovered two decently sized reviews in GameDaily [3] and GameZone [4] (all three reliable in WP:VG/RS). Also some reviews and open beta coverage in Korean, [5], [6], [7], [8]. While the state of the sourcing in the article is pretty poor, the game undoubtedly meets WP:GNG, and that's all it needs per WP:NEXIST. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While the 2nd 4Gamer article says "review" in the URL, the two articles are just previews, and as ferret said, the vetted Korean sources are nonexistent, so I would debate that it undoubtedly meets the criterions. My !vote for redirection still stands, especially as there is a valid target that can have what information exists on the game. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More an aside than anything, but I'd really like to see discussion of some Korean sites at WP:VG/S to see if we can't get some vetted. -- ferret (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NVG is an essay. Merko (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is, and I'm not a huge fan of its use, but it doesn't mean it's wrong. It exists as an explanation of GNG applied to the specific context of video games, that's all. 95% of what it says is straight application of GNG. -- ferret (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Jovan's sources. Sergecross73 msg me 20:42, 19 June 2022 (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.