Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump's Real Estate Tycoon


 * 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. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  13:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump's Real Estate Tycoon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about Computer game which does not meet any notability requirments such as WP:GNG or WP:NGAMES. Searches bring up a couple reviews from sites which review every little game and the one reference in the article which only talks about the game moving onto a mobile platform, nothing which satisfies significant coverage. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 04:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 04:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 04:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - No doubt this is an actual game but it is not significant enough to keep as an article. As mentioned above, the game is only covered in a couple sources reviewing the game. Meatsgains (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - What more is needed to make this thing notable? What is significant coverage? 173.55.37.52 (talk) 04:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Coverage in reliable sources such as Gamespot and Vice.com should suffice to meet notability --Prisencolin (talk) 06:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Coverage seems sufficient. Artw (talk) 07:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as passing WP:GNG with multiple secondary reliable in-depth (reviews) sources, such as WP:VG/RS. Custom RS search brings up the most relevant hits. There's also, but the site is likely to not be deemed reliable at WT:VG/RS. I would mostly argue keeping per being a content WP:SPLIT from main article. (Re GameSpot, it's one of the largest video game review sites, so they do review a lot of games, but they also don't review many others, such as those that didn't survive AfD.) — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subject appears to have received sufficient coverage from reliable third party sources to satisfy general inclusion guidelines.  Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as there's seemingly enough for a separate article and this is overall unlikely to be better mentioned at his article if there's enough. SwisterTwister   talk  07:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge into Donald Trump. Dkendr (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Of the 3 sources used, one is a review, one is a press release type article which has no value and the last is an article which uses the game as a brief comparison for Trump's current political ambitions, it does not talk about the game in any real depth it is more of just a mention. I still don't think this is enough to pass WP:GNG and seems to be an extremely low bar for inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcmatter (talk • contribs) 16:56, January 21, 2016‎
 * Comment Doesn't the external link say anything about the game? It's seems adequate. 208.54.4.172 (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The external link is a user generated website which has no value, in fact the inclusion of this wiki site has been a matter of debate for awhile as it is definitely not considered reliable. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 21:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Coverage is relative trivial.  No reason to merge into the bio article. There's no point in trying to merge in everythign that uses his name.  DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment How often does a video game feature someone well-known? If I'm going to make a game featuring a celebrity, I need to pay royalty which is not cheap, otherwise a lawsuit from that person is likely. I wonder, is notability solely based on how much people comment about it in the media? 172.58.16.159 (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability as used on Wikipedia has a very specific definition, which is that the topic has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Metrics like popularity are not used for this, although they can indicate that a topic may be notable. Many popular topics are not notable on Wikipedia. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The three sources of the article are independent of the subject. Even the source you added here which is in Russian is independent of the subject. They all tell about the game. What more do people want from sources? 172.56.17.127 (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources appear to say about the game sufficiently. Some users claim the sources lack some things but they wouldn't elaborate what. A review is sufficient. Duke17 (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2016 (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.