Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sparkwave

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. Kurykh (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkwave

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

PR-like content which fails WP:WEBCRIT —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the sources are independent from the subject so it passes the WP:GNG and should be kept and secondly it is not web content so it does not have to meet WP:WEBCRIT. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 14:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@KAP03: Which of the cited sources can be considered a reliable source? —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. KAP03's article seems to be a neutral description of the game, and the references are on par with long-standing Wikipedia standards for other games, e.g. X-Man, Overload. This is a computer game, we're not going to be able to reference papers in Nature. The writing quality could be improved, but it deserves to stay. --pmj (talk) 03:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of these sources are unreliable and should be removed. See WP:VG/RS. czar 21:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the problem is that, perhaps except for the very last citation, a lot of the articles seem to be from gamer blogs and websites that might not be considered reliable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think there maybe one good RS from Wikiproject list. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Shawn in Montreal: Isn't the TouchArcade source considered reliable as it is listed as such in WP:VG/RS. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 02:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's the one I spotted. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is that enough to establish notability? —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ONESOURCE? Not for me. But then it's also mentioned in the Macworld roundup and that is mentioned on the list -- through not the British version, it seems. I don't work much in this field but based on my rule of thumb that "multiple" sources = at least three I'd say it falls short at this time. Delete. But I see it has not been added to the video games deletion sorting page. That may get some more knowledgable eyeballs on this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per czar, above--a lack of independent reliable sources means the article fails to meet the bar of the WP:GNG. Review the list here, where I can see one in-depth, one not-quite passing, and more in-passing or user-generated hits. --Izno (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Shawn in Montreal, Izno, Czar, and Oluwa2Chainz: If we are going to delete this article as it does not have any useful results in Sources for Video Games why don't we delete Mini Metro (video game), a WP:GA as the query "mini metro" in the link Sources for Video Games gives 0 results. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 00:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you have an error there: it has plenty of hits. Also look at the article in question and where it's reviewed: multiple reliable, major review sources czar 01:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most notable coverage is brief in TouchArcade and Macworld. Rest is unreliable. Without major coverage in notable sources, this game is not prominent nor covered enough for us to do justice to the topic. czar 01:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not only does it need to appear in multiple reliable sources, but in-depth as well. This does not. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:43, 14 March 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.