Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquamarine (video 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Randykitty (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Aquamarine (video game)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

There are no reviews for the title, and it's completely unnotable FlyingKangeroo (talk) 08:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC) I wrote this article around a year or two ago assuming it would get coverage outside of previews, but it never did. Before submitting this for Afd, I checked for any reviews, and I couldn't find a single one. There's not enough sources to justify the article, which is a shame because it's actually really good.FlyingKangeroo (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Games. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. The references already in the article seem to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Wait, you mean this isn't about a mermaid? Anyway, the sources currently in the article are very much trivial coverage, merely WP:MILL announcements, and some are strictly unreliable from WP:VG/S. I could find WP:SIGCOV in this IGN source that wasn't in the article, but that's about it. Which is strange since you'd think a game that nice-looking would get actual traction. It seems like an example of "otherwise interesting game fails to market itself enough for notability". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Even preview coverage is fine if it's significant, but most of the previews don't seem like it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep The PC Gamer, Rock Paper Shotgun, and IGN sources make this notable. QuicoleJR (talk)
 * I agree with IGN, but the other mentions are trivial. Announcements should be distinguished from reviews. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Those are way too in-depth to be trivial. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  12:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Mobygames lists a review from "Gameplay (Benelux)" (print magazine) which appears to be same as "PC Gameplay", determined to be a reliable source at WP:VG/S. --Mika1h (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's solid, I am still not convinced to change my !vote to Keep however. Besides that, reviews from WP:RS are extremely scant. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep per QuicoleJR and Eastmain's decisions. CastJared (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep the IGN piece and PC Gamer review, plus the promise of the Gameplay (Benelux) review puts this over the line for me. Yeah, the IGN piece isn't a full review, but it's got several paragraphs of description of the game's aesthetics, mechanics and development beyond what's quoted to the developers. signed,Rosguill talk 02:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Rosguill, I think it just about makes it; and the article itself is not offensive so worth preserving. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.