Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawn of Fantasy


 * 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Whisperjanes (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Dawn of Fantasy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn’t meet notability standards through WP:GNG because it doesn’t have sufficient coverage of reliable sources. Almost all sources are fan-created content or press releases, and there is nothing notable enough about the game to have an encyclopedic article written about it. Whisperjanes (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Didn't take me long to find multiple significant coverage in reliable sources, such as Jeuxvideo.com, El Español , 4Players , GameStar and Igromania . Meets WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * But what is notable about the game itself? These sources are mostly just reviews that don't show why the game is worthy of notice. They mention that the game was in development for a long time, and that when it was released, it was disappointing (which doesn't make the game seem very notable to me). Also, just thought I'd mention that source #2 (Vandal) is not a reliable source (see WP:GAMESOURCES). I personally don’t think 4 reliable sources makes a game notable — especially when all of the sources listed are from when the game was initially released (in 2011, and then re-released in 2013). Most games I see get reviewed multiple times upon initial release now, and I don’t think that’s a good judge of a game being notable enough to be in an encyclopedia.
 * Also, just having reliable sources doesn’t guarantee notability under WP:GNG. That's why I'm wondering why or how the game is notable in of itself. -- Whisperjanes (talk) 07:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say that on WP:VG/RS that Vandal is not reliable, but inconclusive discussion of 12 years ago (!). As a matter of fact even, there is a new discussion which leans to reliable now Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources! The point is that has been noticed by reliable sources, meaning it's notable in the context of WP:GNG. You said "doesn’t have sufficient coverage of reliable sources", which I already refuted in matters of seconds of my searches. I can feel your sentiment that some games that pass WP:GNG don't really seem notable at all, as not many of them have ongoing coverage past the release date reviews. But it is what it is, as WP:GNG says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article". Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry about that - I sometimes misread the game sources section that says "inconclusive" and "unreliable" since they're both one after the other and written in a similar matter.
 * Comment I do see the point that it does "have sufficient coverage of reliable sources" unlike what I said before, but I also mentioned "there is nothing notable enough about the game to have an encyclopedic article written about it." I don't think it just is what it is, though, because WP:GNG only establishes "presumed" notability and states at the bottom: ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article..." I still personally don't think coverage of a video game when it is released (especially if it's mostly just because it had a long development and a poor reception) makes a game very significant or note-worthy, unless there are verifiable claims that there is something about the game that makes it notable or outstanding (e.g. UnReal World for how long it was developed/updated, Daikatana for outstanding failure, or obvious ones like Pong or Stardew Valley). This game doesn't make any claim that I can see to being notable. -- Whisperjanes (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Jovanmilic97 has found reliable sources giving it significant coverage.  D r e a m Focus  06:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Whisperjanes doesn't seem to understand the requirements for keeping articles on here. The game has significant coverage, thus it can stay. Bluedude588 (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm fine having a discussion, and open to changing my point of view if I'm misunderstanding Wikipedia guidelines. Saying "I don't seem to understand" and repeating what was already said doesn't actually help me understand. I mean this all in good faith, so I'll repeat: Wikipedia's WP:GNG has a whole part that talks about "presumed" notability - can someone explain why this doesn't apply in this case? -- Whisperjanes (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally a game is considered notable if it has sufficient reviews in RS. It doesn't have to have something particularly "special" about it, because it's hard to define what "special" is, especially in comparison to other games. If many reliable sources wrote in depth on it, it's presumed to be notable no matter how good or bad it is.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate the explanation. I don't personally see the sources being convincing enough that this passes the assumption of notability laid out in WP:GNG, but I can see the community consensus and that this is how notability is usually passed for games.-- Whisperjanes (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Not a ton of reliable sources, but enough to justify passing GNG.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Jovanmilic97. = paul2520 (talk) 04:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, Per above, enough coverage can be found. Alex-h (talk) 08:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: It has enough sources and passes notability. Ireneshih (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2020 (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.