Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flying Tigers: Shadows Over China


 * 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 no consensus. It is not clear from this discussion if there are enough sources that establish notability, as many but not all of them have been contested. COI issues or image issues should be discussed elsewhere; as for the advertising claims, I am pretty certain that on Wikipedia a claim of "advertising" requires more than just a page existing with poor sourcing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Flying Tigers: Shadows Over China

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to be a WP:GNG fail that was sloppily accepted through AfC by a reviewer. Of the reviews that exists for the game, only one from IGN Spain appears to be from a reliable source, while the others are from obscure blogs. Just because it exists on Metacritic doesn't indicate notability. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I object to "sloppily accepting" the article. I cleaned it up a bit and made sure it was acceptable. There are plenty of sources and reviews. The game is on Xbox and Windows and a search of Google news brings up sources of release. Also, go past the first page of google and see the availability of sources to this game. AmericanAir88(talk) 16:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between reliable and unreliable sources, that can project the illusion of notability. WikiProject VG has plenty of unreliable sources listed at WP:VG/S since there is a tremendous proliferation of small blogs with little or no editorial oversight that are mostly for getting ad clicks. Distilling it down to the reliable sources leaves us with IGN only.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The custom Google search for video game articles shows plenty of results.   D r e a m Focus  20:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Concern Although I stand by my keep, the creator is fishy as they keep uploading images for the game. (COI?). AmericanAir88(talk) 20:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Reviews like this prove it passes the general notability guidelines.   D r e a m Focus  20:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Usually it takes at least 3 RS to prove notability, that is only one. If we have to grasp at straws to prove it's notable, then it falls more into the camp of "advertising" than making an article about an encyclopedic topic.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It requires two or more, always has, and always will. The article has reviews in it already including  for the reliable source IGN giving it significant coverage there.   D r e a m Focus  23:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I pretty much agree with the things WP:THREE and WP:BARE say. I could be more lenient with topics that don't get easily covered in online media, but video games and 2 reliable sources equals notability is a big nope for me. Wikipedia isn't a listing of every single video game release (in fact, it would be hard to find a game without 2 reliable source reviews considering all the languages!). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's an essay, just someone's personal opinion. This has been discussed over the years, and the general notability guidelines require two or more sources.  We go by what meets the guidelines, not personal opinions.   D r e a m Focus  13:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "In science, a multiple is the product of any quantity and an integer", or in Merriam-Webster "consisting of, including, or involving more than one". Which does allow different interpretations of what a "multiple" is. If two was enough, it would have been precisely clarified as such. I stand by what I said. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/multiple "More than one". That's precise enough.  We're not talking about multiples in a mathematical equation, we're talking about multiple sources.  I think its clear enough for people to instantly understand. There is no need to go across all of Wikipedia or the entire written text of the world and change the word "multiple" to "more than one" or "two or more".   D r e a m Focus  14:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think WP:THREE makes sense for games, since they tend to not have incredibly deep sources (like a book written about the subject) and are mostly concentrated to short, online articles. If two is the bare minimum, they should be deep dives into the subject, not just previews-that-aren't-even-reviews.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I wanted to use the official poster for the game, the other image was just a placeholder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marksethi (talk  contribs) 03:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment First of all, this was a poor draft accept by, leaving IMDB as a reference among other unreliable sources. I am on the fence right now (hence no vote) since the indepth coverage in Rock, Paper, Shotgun and IGN Spain exists, both reliable. Not enough to sway me to keep considering video games get coverage rather easily, and this one isn't a recent release. Is it OK with the people here if I post the reliability discussion for the Xbox Tavern, Xbox Addict, Generación Xbox, TheXboxHub and TrueAchievements on WP:VG/RS talk page? I personally find all of these to be unreliable one way or another (especially Addict and Generacion), but just to be all sure. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't need anyone's permission to do that, if you think it needs to be done so be it.  D r e a m Focus  13:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep The article has received significant coverage from reliable sources (like reviews) that proves it meets the general notability guidelines Taewangkorea (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - the sources look pretty sketchy - WP:NVIDEOGAMES states "A video game is appropriate for an article if it has been the subject of significant commentary or analysis in published sources that are independent of the game developer" - sources for the article like xboxaddict and xbox tavern are not valid because it is an xbox game - other refs are to store.steampowered.com and Microsoft Store, which seems promotional, directing people to where they can buy the game - the references are to websites that do not meet WP:RS: "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" - this seems to be purely a promotional article for the game with WP:REFBOMBING to WP:MASK lack of notability - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:17, 23 August 2019 (UTC) Definitely not advertising. I would say by video game standards only one of these reviews are positive, and by those same standards the score isn't anywhere close to a must play game. Marksethi (talk) 10:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Erm... something can be advertising even if the scores aren't positive. The fact that an article about it exists is enough to get more people looking at it. I can't definitively say that it is, but either way, Wikipedia isn't in the business of propping up articles with barely any notability so that a game can get more publicity.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I wrote it and it wasn't written with any intention of advertising. I tried to remain unbiased as possible when writing the article. Marksethi (talk) 10:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, per above comments. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:15, 1 September 2019 (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.