Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cookie's Bustle (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. First WP:SNOW close. Please tell me if I applied it wrong. (non-admin closure) Carpimaps (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Cookie's Bustle
AfDs for this article:


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

Reopen AfD. Game is non-notable and fails WP:GNG, and the WP:REFUND requested for the article failed to fix these issues. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Somewhat surprised some one put the article back up considering how little the notability is for this game, as the person who made the article in the first place im gonna be honest there is not a lot of sources for this game. Not gonna add a CSD tag this time because the author who did get the article back may add more viable sources and probably will challenge this AfD. Seems that there are reliable sources as shown by the recent edits and this AfD discussion so Keep Lambda-edits-things (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete The Hardcore Gaming source is SIGCOV and VGRS, but other than that all I can find is a Japanese review of unknown reliability. Assuming the Japanese review is reliable though, one more source would push it over the line, or coverage of the games attempted removal by VGRS. Jumpytoo Talk 02:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Changing vote to keep thanks to the evidence by NinCollin and Tom gordon that the Time Exchange and Japanese articles are reliable sources Jumpytoo Talk 21:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd argue that Time Exchange article is a reliable source as well, as the author of that article is Damien McFerran, Editorial Director of Nintendo Life, Push Square, and Pure Xbox, all of which are listed as reliable sources on this page. A few others would agree on this. NinCollin (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I admit it is a weird situation, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events", and that means whether the game itself is notable, not a copyright claim long after the fact. And in that regard, there's only one review that has been confirmed reliable, so I will definitely not withdraw the AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * To add to this train, the aforementioned Japanese article is, from what I can find, the only archived version of a LOGiN article - LOGiN was a Japanese web-magazine that was part of ASCII Media Works (itself being part of Kadokawa Future Publishing, the holder of Enterbrain, who are cited on these three articles and many more), so I'd say that's fairly notable. Atop that, the author, Osyamu Takashima, has a Foriio page with his credits smothered across it. Keep Tom gordon (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep HG101 is definitely a reliable source, and like I said in my response to Jumpytoo, Time Exchange is also very likely a reliable source, as it's written by the Editorial Director of three other approved reliable sources. As far as the iDevGames source, it's cited on a few other articles (like this one), so it's not necessarily unreliable, but I could also understand the argument that, being an interview, it doesn't really add notability (since it could be considered mostly primary-source material.) Jumpytoo also brought up this review, but as stated it's of unknown reliability. The official website also mentions several magazines (alternative English version) that are in some way associated with the game (whether said magazines featured the game in an article or otherwise,) so that's worth looking into if said magazines can be found (which may prove quite challenging though, since they may not be archived anywhere and thus may be lost media.)
 * I feel that there's enough here though to warrant keeping this article for now. NinCollin (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's not the weakest sourcing, and it sounds like there might be some more sources to discover with some work. - Whadup, it&#39;s ya girl, Dusa (talk) 10:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:THREE. 134.6.245.131 (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep The sourcing isn't the best I've ever seen, but is does seem to get it over the line of demonstrating notability. The Wordsmith Talk to me 18:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep scrapes through WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:16, 23 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.