Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Company of Heroes 3


 * 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. WP:SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Company of Heroes 3

 * – ( View AfD View log )

First this is the case of WP:TOOSOON. Available references are from same non reliable website and seems self published/paid. They do not show significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. DMySon (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - All 10 sources currently in the article are considered reliable/usable per WP:VG/S, and all are dedicated entirely around the subject itself - not passing mentions. The article managed to muster up a few paragraphs of content despite nominated just a few hours after creation. While a merge could be a possile conclusion, most of this nomination itself (such as writing off massive publications like IGN, PC Gamer, or Polygon (website) as self-published and unreliable) is pretty ill-conceived and incorrect. Sergecross73   msg me  09:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I see a lot of non-trivial hands-ons/previews of the title in IGN, VentureBeat, PC Magazine, PC Gamer and Rock Paper Shotgun (they are right now in the article, all reliable sources per WP:VG/RS), that aren't routine and actually go in-depth for some of the features. And there's more of it: Eurogamer, PC Games , 4Gamer , Multiplayer.it , and paywalled previews in Gamekult and GameStar. Easy WP:GNG pass for me. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Everything that the nominator said is wrong. The references in the article are all high quality sources. It almost seems like the nom nominated this only for the sake of looking something to delete. enjoyer -- talk 13:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Besides the quality of the sources (at least for video game related content) we actually have more than just "the game was announced and is due YYYY" type coverage, including some factors of its development. While the game could be suddenly cancelled - leading me to then think merging this would be appropriate - this is a reasonable start for a sequel for a major series. --M asem (t) 14:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The assertions that the cited sources are "non reliable website", "self published/paid", and "significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" are incorrect at best, disingenuous at worst. If the nominator's concern is that the article's creation into mainspace is WP:TOOSOON, an argument should have been made to send it to draftspace. However, the sources cited are more then adequate to justify the article's existence. As other editors have pointed out, if it is canceled and hypothetically no extensive sourcing emerges to cover why it is canceled, a merge discussion into the series article would be appropriate. Haleth (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources are already ok-ish and it doesn't require crystal ball (just passing familiarity with the video gaming scene) to know this will be a major title. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:21, 12 August 2021 (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.