Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead Maze


 * 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, albeit weakly. I'm not opposed to draftifying this if folks think they can find sourcing as it is close. Star  Mississippi  13:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Dead Maze

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

Fails WP:GNG - all sources used are either trivial or from unreliable sites. While the article creator may be a WP:COI editor, the article itself doesn't read like spam; this nomination is in regards to its lack of notability rather than any actual problems with the article content. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisting. I'm not seeing a consensus yet and I think it is too early to rule this as No consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 08:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete : I was able to find this small news hit at Siliconera but otherwise nothing. Clearly not notable. Nomader  ( talk ) 15:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * And just to clarify for anyone coming by, confused why something with so many sources isn't getting a keep !vote from me -- the sources are all considered unreliable or user-submitted stuff according to WP:VG/RS. Nomader  ( talk ) 15:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: The article now has sources considered reliable by WP:VG/RS that the voter above is referring to. Shacknews, Hardcore Gamer, PCGamesN, Siliconera, Gry OnLine, Jeuxvideo.com. Additionally, this is a French game so there could be offline sources in language French, which I haven't looked for yet. Tagatose (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * These clearly don't pass WP:RS. Shacknews and Hardcore Gamer literally have the same print and appear to be sourced from a press release, PCGamesN is a key giveaway, Gry OnLine's page here is a Wiki page and not a review from staff, and the Jeuxvideo.com piece is a three sentence blurb. These are trivial mentions, and it's why I didn't cite these before. As I mentioned in my follow-up note, there's a lot of press releases and unreliable sources abounding with this one, but no real commentary on the game itself -- just ads and spammy content. Nomader  ( talk ) 18:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - I did find two articles from Metacritic which review the game, but I'm unsure of their reliability. They're from Areajugones (in Spanish) and The Overpowered Noobs. I saw that Overpowered Noobs was unreliable, but the discussion was from 2018, so there's a possibility it may have changed in reliability between those past few years. I'm not sure if AreaJugones has been vetted for reliability in the past, so if anyone wants to check, help yourselves. Also, I took a look at the French version of VG/RS, and I came across a review from CanardPC which is listed as reliable over there. I can't access it however because it's behind a paywall, so if anyone could test it for me, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Reviewing it, I'd still say that The Overpowered Noobs is still unreliable and the consensus from the previous discussion can hold. I'd actually say that Areajugones *is* a reliable source -- it has a full-time editorial team and seems to have an editorial process in one of its About Us pages (although my Spanish isn't great, so would be better for a native speaker to review here). CanardPC also should be listed as reliable here as well based on its editorial policies and staffing page -- I tried various methods to get around the paywall as well but couldn't. I'm striking my !vote above and making it a week keep, because I'm assuming that behind the paywall there's a full review present. This is candidly a great lesson in doing harder searches for foreign-language content for me -- thanks to you and Tagatose for your searches to leave no stone unturned here. Nomader  ( talk ) 19:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Even factoring in the Areajugones and CanardPC review, I still will not withdraw the AfD. That's only a couple of sources and not at the level of proving WP:GNG, one further source would be nice. Also, can we prove CanardPC is actually reliable? Obviously anyone can tweak a sources list. I can't find a list of editors nor the real name of the writer, so I am highly dubious. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think that you should withdraw it -- this is still a "Weak Keep" at best from me, partially predicated on the fact that none of us can read that article, frustratingly. I found their "About Us" staff page here (Google Translated: ), which lists their publication history, staff, and editors. I'm counting the wimpy Siliconera article that I mentioned above as the "third" article that I'm looking at towards meeting WP:GNG right now. Nomader  ( talk ) 21:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Siliconera is what I would see as WP:MILL coverage. Most likely it's based on some press release and doesn't have the critical view required for WP:SIGCOV. While Canard seems to be a real magazine, I also find it hard to take seriously the reliability of a site that does not list the real names of its writers, this is 2023 and not 2003. If there were a ton of other sources I'd probably say Canard is perfectly admissible, but when notability hangs in the balance, I'm not so sure. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Understandable that you would keep the AfD up; to be honest I would also recommend doing so too because we still haven't exactly accessed the CanardPC review. Also one thing to consider - I don't exactly remember where I read this, but I found out that apparently some European journalists use pseudonyms as a way to protect their identity. This was a concern I had when I first read pieces from sources listed on the French VG/RS page a few months ago. Although it may seem like something blogs would do, in this regard I don't think writers having pseudonyms should automatically alter the reliability of a news outlet. Not to mention, the writer of the Canard piece has also written for reliable source GameKult as well.
 * In the meantime, I'm holding off on voting and am going to see if any more French news outlets have written about the game. PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete. While there is sparse coverage, the only reviews found are either listed as unreliable or have not had any discussions about their reliability. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:59, 7 April 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.