Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalmatians 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 delete. The consensus is that the requirements of the GNG are not satisfied, and the advocates of keeping have not adequately addressed that argument. Deor (talk) 11:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Dalmatians 3

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Ambiguous attack page with no RS. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete G10 as attack page with no neutral previous version czar ♔   01:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Now that the CSD has been contested, regular delete. The article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It didn't pass a search engine test or have meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search. (The AllGame listing of the company was the only hit.) Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. Eye close font awesome.svg czar ♔   02:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. This is nonsense, the page isn't attacking any living person whatsoever. Nonetheless, while I see that a lack of reliable sources can be a problem, just give the page some time. Phoenix, the developer of the game, is strangely unknown around the Internet in places other than YouTube. Unfortunately, Wikipedia guidelines state that YouTube videos are unreliable, so there is little reference outside of that. But honestly, let the page grow for a while, then we can see if it's truly needed.  Matthew  - (talk · userpage · contributions) 03:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: The article now has four references so far. -- Matthew  - (talk · userpage · contributions) 00:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * None of the four are reliable (see the link for more information): one is self-published and the other three are unreliable (blogs). For more on the types of sources WP accepts, see the video game WikiProject's list at WP:VG/RS czar ♔   03:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, fine, now so far I've added one and changed another. Also, a question: how long will this deletion be up for debate? I've looked around on the guidelines page and didn't find anything about that. -- Matthew  - (talk · userpage · contributions) 13:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The Hollywood Reporter doesn't even mention the game once, so I'm not sure why you added it. The answer to your question is a week (second sentence of WP:AFD), with extensions as necessary czar ♔   13:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, fair enough, the blogs are considered unreliable and the other article doesn't mention the game. Does the video reference count as anything? The game, while maybe not too notable, certainly exists and has received attention by those who've seen the video. Also, if you consider this article unreliable, you may as well confront the other Phoenix Games articles. -- Matthew  - (talk · userpage · contributions) 19:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I can add Phoenix to my list. hiddenblock.com was down when I went to check it, but the cached version's about page didn't have an editorial policy—so that's likely unreliable as well. czar ♔   19:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * True, neither YouTube nor Hidden Block have editorial policies, but the video review in question does still show the game's box and footage from the game itself. Those who have viewed the video often find it to indeed be a terribly flawed game, and what over 650,000 people consider to be such a poorly-crafted creation could be of benefit to WP:VG. The video is informative about the game; furthermore, though this factor is irrelevant, I find the video pretty funny. -- Matthew  - (talk · userpage · contributions) 00:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's all well and good (and I actually had seen the video before this AfD), but the notability criteria are designed to make sure there's enough reliable content to actually have a page. Otherwise it becomes a magnet for unofficial stuff, blog posts, you know czar ♔   01:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Insufficient reviews to be notable; it features in some lists and brief articles, but mainly in forums. Could redirect to Phoenix Software but that article really needs some sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Even though the article is far from being an attack page (it does have NPOV issues), it fails WP:GNG, with no reliable sources. It's a game major platform so sources could possibly be found, though that's unlikely, and notability isn't inherited. Satellizer   (´ ･ ω ･ `)  11:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep This article contains no attack to any aspects of the company in any way shape or form. No attack is intended or directed at any aspect of the company or their released titles. I see that there is no reason to delete this article so forth as it helps sole video game reviews as myself. Although there is some verification needed, that can be changed in the coming future. Verification as a whole is not just one aspect to delete articles. Many aspects should be taken into consideration as of the knowledge of this company. — TastyTwinkie214 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC).
 * Merge This and all the other Phoenix Dalmatian games into one article, as long as we can find reliable sources. If not then I will change my vote to delete. good888 (talk) 09:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not a single source that is both reliable and providing significant coverage. Fails the GNG. Sergecross73   msg me  20:26, 12 July 2014 (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.