Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attack of the Mutant Penguins (2nd 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. See below on log page. Same may apply. (non-admin closure)  J 947  05:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Attack of the Mutant Penguins
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Like Club Drive, this article was brought to AfD and closed as keep under shaky circumstances back in 2010 (see WP: Articles for deletion/Club Drive (2nd nomination) for the full story), and is due for reconsideration. Similar problems apply: The article has virtually no content, and the article subject has no claim to notability and very little coverage from notable/reliable sources. The article lists "Allgame review" as a source, but checking an archive of the now dead link I see Allgame in fact only had a brief synopsis of the game, no review or other significant content. Martin IIIa (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep as passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth (reviews) sources from contemporary magazines, as listed here. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I consulted Mobygames before opening this AfD and was not impressed by the listing there. Of the 16 reviews listed, two have been determined to be unreliable, and only one has been confirmed to be reliable - GamePro, which doesn't help establish notability since during the 1990s they reviewed every single game that was released. On top of that, of the sources that haven't been determined to be unreliable, only five are in English.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NONENG allows non-English sources and that is not a valid deletion reason. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and it's not really relevant how many other games have or haven't been reviewed. I see contemporary printed magazines with editorial staff. I sort of understand your position, but I don't agree the available sources are insufficient for GNG. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NONENG allows non-English sources for citing facts, not for establishing notability. A notable subject should have lots of sources in the same language; having one or two sources each in lots of languages just establishes that the subject was released in lots of different countries. In some cases being released in many countries might suggest notability, but not for a first party video game. I don't understand your reference to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That is simply not true, this is in the notability guidelines "Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. The general notability guldine section (please see WP:GNG the place the quote came from) would not say that sources don't have to be in English if that guideline did not accept them in the first place. If you still insist that the notability guldelines don't allow for non English sources can you please Show where that is explictally mentioned.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not completely unambiguous that the quoted passage is saying that non-English sources establish notability on English Wikipedia in every possible case. But more importantly, quoting policy without offering any reasoning is not convincing.--Martin IIIa (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There would be no reason to for the General Notability Guidlines to even meniton that sources don't need to be in English if they did not count towards notability and I doubt that anyone closing this discussion would give that view any consideration. If you seriously want to contest this the best place would be a discussion at WP:N but I can imagine that such an argument would gain any traction.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Many of the sources listed by MobyGames are reliable per WP:VG/RS.  If it got significant coverage in offline, non-English sources, that's alright. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You'll have to elaborate about these "many" sources which have been determined to be reliable; as previously noted, I checked the list and the only match I see is GamePro.--Martin IIIa (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2017 (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.