Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynamic Trial 7


 * 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.  Arbitrarily0  ( talk ) 22:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Dynamic Trial 7

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article on an obscure unreleased game from an obscure developer that fails WP:N. The majority of the sources are Tumblr fan blogs and interviews that count as primary sources. Though the article's lead claims it was previewed in a few magazines, there's absolutely nothing here that proves it. MobyGames and Web Archive turn up with nothing. Namcokid 47  (Contribs) 03:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - I am sorry but your statement about the game not being previewed in magazines is completely wrong. There are references of Dynamic Trial 7 being previewed, talked about and showcased at trade shows already in place such as Beep! MegaDrive, Game Machine, Micom BASIC Magazine, Gamest, Shooting Gameside and the Arcade Game Classics book. Any reader can see them at the bottom of the article's references section. MobyGames only mentions games that were actually released, by the way. I stand by my decision, even if the page gets deleted for such reason... Roberth Martinez (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * All of those are just announcements or trivial mentions, they don't offer any actual critical commentary. Give me significant coverage, not from Tumblr blogs or sites of dubious reliability, but from magazines or other sources that preview this game in-depth. None of the sources here have that. You can't stand here and tell me "it's notable" without giving me the why. Namcokid  47  (Contribs) 05:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've done my research and the Tumblr account belongs to Eric "ShouTime" Chung, who has helped M2 multiple times and whose name can be seen at the development support section of ESP.Ra.De Psy's credits page at MobyGames ... Roberth Martinez (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

C-Class articles are said to be in the top 18% of accepted submissions on AfC. – Cupper 52 Discuss! 17:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Rated C-Class in WikiProject Video games. – Cupper 52 Discuss! 11:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with anything? Namcokid  47  (Contribs) 16:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you want to try again with a new rationale? Project rating systems usually only really measure how much is present in the article, is usually outdated by years, and does not evaluate for notability.  I mean this with all due respect, you may want to reconsider your rationale.  Red Phoenix  talk  16:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And that assessment rating was added by the article creator himself, and this did not go through AFC. Not that it needed to; the creator is an experienced editor.  Still doesn’t address notability concerns, the crux of this discussion.  Red Phoenix  talk  21:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete unless someone can show me something other than WP:ROUTINE coverage of the subject. That reliable sources published something is good.  That it’s essentially “news coverage” is not. Sources about the game’s development could help greatly with this, but otherwise, I draw parallels between this and Articles for deletion/2 Days to Vegas (2nd nomination).   Red Phoenix  talk  16:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - not nearly enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 16:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per Red Phoenix's analysis. Class ratings are user-made and neither prove nor disprove notability. The argument technically fails WP:USERG.  IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 15:25, 28 December 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.