Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual Pool 4

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 merge‎ to Virtual Pool. I see a consensus to Merge this article with Virtual Pool Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Pool 4

[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. Lots of sources in the article but no reliable, significant coverage. Only candidate I found is a Softpedia review: [1] (listed as a "situational source" by WP:VG/S) but even if it would be counted, 1 review wouldn't be enough. Mika1h (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Mika1h (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Virtual Pool as a WP:ATD. Couldn't really find anything of note. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since there is signifant coverage in multiple independent reviews (findable in a few seconds (albeit amid some chaff) [2][3]. More of these reviews need to be added to the article, and some iffy sourcing replaced, but that's a WP:IMPATIENT matter. At bare minimum, it should merge to Virtual Pool; there's not an actual deletion case here. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mind singling out the actual reviews from reliable sources? I couldn't find them, much less in a "few seconds". If you put them here that would be much easier. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just tooling around for a few minutes, I find the following reviews, at sites that don't appear to be user forums (that said, I'm not an expert in what gaming-related sites we consider good enough to cite):
https://gertlushgaming.co.uk/review-virtual-pool-4-steam/

https://www.giantbomb.com/virtual-pool-4/3030-41158/

https://game-solver.com/virtual-pool-online/ - online version

https://toucharcade.com/games/virtual-pool-4

https://tallyhocorner.com/2023/05/3x3-18/ - about half-way down the review page here

https://guysplaypool.com/best-pool-game-on-pc-or-smartphone/

https://www.saashub.com/compare-pool-nation-vs-virtual-pool-4 - in comparison to competing game Pool Nation

https://gizorama.com/2014/review/pure-pool-review - in comparison to competing game Pure Pool

https://www.uubyte.com/blog/kick-shot-pool-review-a-game-changing-experience-for-billiards-enthusiasts/ - briefly, in comparison to competing game Kick Shot Pool

https://www.topsevenreviews.com/best-8-ball-pool-games/ - very short

https://macdownload.informer.com/virtual-pool-4-online/ - might be based on the game marketing, not sure

https://www.dadsgamingaddiction.com/virtual-pool-4/ - might just be one guy's blog

https://povpool.com/virtual-pool-4-officially-releases-online/ - review at site devoted to pool/billiards media

http://www.pro9.co.uk/html/print.php?sid=2606 - review at site for professional 9-ball tournament news

http://www.pro9.co.uk/html/print.php?sid=1516 - ditto, and in-depth about some features, and comparison to VP3

https://www.pcgamebenchmark.com/virtual-pool-4-system-requirements - technical benchmarking

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Minds_Behind_Sports_Games/3-n5DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Virtual+Pool+4%22&pg=PA60&printsec=frontcover - covered by name (the online version) as part of the franchise in a book, THe Minds Behind Sports Games
What's missing is coverage in the top gaming-review sites, since they seem to not be big into games in this genre (not enough gore and explosions?) Lee Vilenski, below, is probably correct that pool magazines (Inside Pool, Billiard Digest, etc.) would probably have covered this with reviews around when the came out, but I'm not subscribed to any of them any longer; someone able to do detailed periodical searches, probably through a university library system, might be able to find them. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Giantbomb source you listed is a wiki that fails WP:USERG. (The article literally has a "last edited by [username] on it" note on it.) Can't comment on any others - as much as I know most of WP:VG/S by heart, I've never heard of most of the rest of those sources... Sergecross73 msg me 22:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - so I don't really know about this one. I've done a search about this before, but I know it gets a mention in this book, which makes me think it's probably got some genre specific sources out there - it's the sort of thing that pool magazines probably covered to death when it came out, but I don't have anything from America at that time (I doubt Snooker Scene covered it). It's clear that we don't have any VG specific RS for reviews, or they would show up through metacritic. I would however, be confused if it didn't have enough in-depth coverage due to the series it is from. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
these two sources are just press releases] but this is the sort of thing I would be expecting. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Virtual Pool. The review sources provided above do not include accepted reliable secondary sources of the type identified in WP:VG/S. It's important to avoid collating indiscriminate collections of information from various blogs and enthusiast sites that aren't verifiable or haven't been subject to editorial review. Whilst these sort of sources can sometimes supplement others to help establish an article is notable, if there simply isn't coverage from reliable mainstream secondary sources, it shouldn't pass the threshold for notability. Unfortunately, some of the more mainstream websites linked, such as TouchArcade and GiantBomb are descriptions of the game and lack independent reviews. As it currently stands, I don't think the sources, either in the article or linked above, illustrate notability. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 02:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Virtual Pool as a proper alternative to deletion. I have searched a lot for this, but I haven't been able to find much beyond listings, unreliable blogs (Pro9's coverage might be the only thing close to reliable source) and store links. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:15, 29 August 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.