Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurora (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 delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Aurora (video game)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I was going to PROD this but I was concerned that I may have missed some possible sources and given the lack of attention the page gets, it would have been unfairly deleted. However, all I have been able to find are. As it stands, this is a non-notable video game unless anyone else is able to find additional reliable sources.  Anarchyte ( work  &#124;  talk )  07:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  07:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

keep the extensive PCWorld and RPS reviews establish notability. Poor article non-the-less, will put on watch list and maybe improve. Shaddim (talk) 08:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Given this is a paragraph long, that leaves us with an interview and an article. It'd be quite difficult to argue that a topic is notable using only two sources. Note the GiantBomb reference is a wiki.  Anarchyte ( work  &#124;  talk )  12:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well our notability criteria require only "multiple reliable sources with extensive handling of the topic". Two reliable good sources are multiple (+ lesser refs). Being called "the Dwarf fortress in space" is very strong positive statement, indicating notability. Additionally to this: this was not an one hit wonder but is after 14 years still under development with an active community. So, active and real world reception, clear keep.Shaddim (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - These sources don't exactly scream notability to me.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7</i>  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. <i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i>  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Delete/merge/redirect/(and keep) – ?
 * Given the connection established in the RPS interview of the developer, I would suggest a 2-3 sentence brief description in some sort of "Legacy" section in the article on Starfire (board wargame). Merge and redirect. --Izno (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes  16:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete PCWorld is the most solid source. Giantbomb appears to be a wiki for the game. Rock, Paper, Shotgun is an email interview with the developer. I feel it would need more sources to be notable. Gameinfirmary (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * no need for feelings, as we have policies saying something is notable if "multiple reliable sources discussing it in detail", we have two which is multiple. Also, sources don't make something notable, their existence (hopefully) reflect a notability, so they are a some indirect measure to assess notability. Also, an interview is an in detail discussion, well thought out and prepared reception of a journalist, so counts. +notabiloty: the game is awarded with title being "Dwarf fortress in space" +notability: real world impact be being in use by many for 14 years, which should have weight (our excessive focus on determining notability as "how relevant is this topic for the reality/world" primarily on counting so called "reliable" sources instead of real usage and society reception is annoying) Shaddim (talk) 07:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * An interview is clearly a non-independent source if not also a primary work, so it doesn't count toward GNG concerns. Your arguments are otherwise mostly WP:ATADD. --Izno (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Run of the Mill video game article that is supported by un-notable references. AmericanAir88 (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * the references should not be notable, the subject should be notable. Being the "dwarf fortress of the 4x games" is notability. Shaddim (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.