Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City Bus Simulator


 * 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. Despite my sympathy for ' reasoning, it is obvious that the consensus here is for "keep". Randykitty (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

City Bus Simulator

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

Fails GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (video games). The reviews from mobygame are considered unreliable from this, and the 2 sources mentioned in the article are either deleted or unreliable. I went on the wayback machine and tried to find the page for the german article, but the archive only went as far back as 2013. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 18:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and United States of America.  `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 18:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Unable to find reliable sources to support WP:GNG. Note that this series is not part of the Bus Simulator series published by Astragon. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to City Bus Simulator 2010 based on sources provided below. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete I've checked the company website but there is nothing there either. Timur9008 (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to City Bus Simulator 2010 per sources provided below. Timur9008 (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep As I noted in my deprod rationale, Mobygames shows that there are 5 reviews for the first game, of which 3 are WP:VGRS, with one of the other ones having a print edition so I argue is also a VGRS:
 * - VGRS
 * - VGRS
 * - No consensus at VGRS, but has print edition so argue should be VGRS
 * - VGRS, though I note the review is rather short, possibly a full version got lost or is print only
 * Jumpytoo Talk 18:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * City Bus Simulator 2010 may very well be notable, but that doesn't mean the game series is (which this article and AfD is about)... Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Those sources are only for 1 of the game, the series however are unnotable. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 03:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep and move to City Bus Simulator 2010 The topic of this article isn't the original game in the series, City Bus Simulator 2010, but about the series which only has 2 main games. Like Jumpytoo demonstrated above, City Bus Simulator 2010 (for which an article can be created with the sequel info in a section) meets WP:GNG separately. However, there are no multiple significant reliable sources in my searches that cover the series in general, which is the actual topic that doesn't meet WP:GNG. While my first choice would be to move the article to a base name of the original game, there's little of anything concrete regarding the first game only to support itself beyond a short lead and would be better off with a WP:TNT. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a usable revision that discusses the first game in a bit more detail. While still a stub, it should be a good starting point if the article is to be moved as you propose. At the very least, I don't see the need for WP:TNT deletion. Jumpytoo Talk 03:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with this in such case per WP:ATD. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There are still problems with that, such as the sources are not the same as it was in 2013. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 03:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep and move to City Bus Simulator 2010 and revert to its original form. While it would be a stub, the game is demonstrably notable and it is "better than nothing". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep The argument seems to be that sequel isn't considered as notable as the first game. But if the first game is to be considered notable then it would obviously be essential for the article to acknowledge the sequel, which would basically end up with the same situation as present just with a rewording for Wiki editors' sake that wouldn't actually benefit anyone seeking information. I personally would consider both to be notable if nothing else because CBS2 had large-scale retail releases with multiple publishers across different countries, which in 2014 did carry significance (unlike the many thousands of rushed out mobile or indie games that exist today). I don't have sufficient interest in this to bother researching suitable sources but if anyone does wish to try I'd suggest looking at German speaking media. Mainline421 (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The series is not notable, howerver one of the games is, which leads me to belive that the notable game should get its own article, not the series. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 03:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep and move to City Bus Simulator 2010 - The stub revision from above should be retained for future development. Meets notability guidelines. --  Dane  talk  21:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep and move per above. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - Going against the grain here, I know. We have a simulation game about driving a bus in NYC, two subjects for which there are two entirely separate, obsessed fandoms, and these are the only sources available? What does this add, exactly? These appear to be concurrent reviews that don't build on the coverage in any way. The most in-depth (to the extent that it's hard to say the others add much) is from 4players. Assuming that's a good source, it's still not a lot to go on, and if a handful of reviews, with no indication of lasting significance, are all that's required to satisfy video game notability (contrary to the GNG), I'm going to say the bar is too low in this field. But on the subject of reliability, it looks like folks are just deferring to this page, where it was added based on a single opinion from a user with a few hundred edits. Not faulting anything they said, but again it's such a low bar. But I say this knowing that I'm utterly in the minority here, too. :) &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:28, 21 February 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.