Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Cities


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Free Cities

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable game, Fails GNG – Davey 2010 Talk 16:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete - extremely clearly non-notable. All primary or non-independent references inside. Nothing of any benefit elsewhere. Given the basis on which the PROD was removed, I'd specifically note that lewdgamer is not a reliable source, and this is a viewpoint also considered on the reliable/source noticeboard. Even if it were, 2+ reviews are generally needed to pass notability for games. As a side note, on the extremely off chance this remains, a proper detailing of sources in-article would be appreciated. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. No nontrivial reliably sourced content, likely no RS content at all. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete I couldn't find trusted sources mentioning this game. -- Gprscrippers (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to delete. A review of the WP:VG/SE showed at least one RS mention/content, but there was certainly nothing treating the topic in significance. --Izno (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So, there is a source at Kotaku. Two paragraphs in one work is not multiple sources. --Izno (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as previous PROD-er. Not finding much in the way of reliable secondary sources. Aspening (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - I looked for sources and, to my surprise, did find one which Izno already found, but which I overlooked for some reason, (republished a couple of places). The other sources in the article are not enough to demonstrate notability. I do not think there are any other reliable sources out there, and one source with a few short paragraphs doesn't justify an article. Grayfell (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Also looked for sources. Found the same Kotaku article that others dug up. Noticed that there are actually two version by two different authors (.com.au and .com), but the fact remains that despite multiple people searching for anything remotely authoritative, there is nothing remotely authoritative. Also, I went to the other sources referenced in the article and they literally have pop ups for cam sites. User history seems to indicate plausible sockpuppet account as well. This article is the most blatant, but there are some other questionable edits/articles in the history. If possible to do a WP:CheckUser, might be worth doing.
 * https://kotaku.com/porn-game-developers-are-making-big-money-thanks-to-cro-1827846560
 * https://www.kotaku.com.au/2018/07/porn-game-developers-are-making-big-money-thanks-to-crowdfunding/
 * DirkDouse (talk) 02:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete  I couldn't find any multiple reliable-independent, sufficient coverage of the game anywhere after doing exhaustive searches on it. So delete JC7V  -constructive zone  16:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Close Request - given the issues with the sources (beyond their failure at actually being sources), at the SNOW avalanche going on, could I ask an admin to consider this for a SNOW close? Nosebagbear (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, article strongly fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete current article as failing GNG per above and create Redirect to free city disambiguation page as the plural is a reasonable search term including Template:R from other capitalisation. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, this. 216.8.143.171 (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete game doesn't meet any sort of notability guideline and sources are lacking. Adamtt9 (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Not to pile on here, but having read the Kotaku article that represents the most significant coverage of this game, it actually makes a somewhat strong case that it's significant, calling it "a hit" and "closest...ever come to mainstream". However, given that this genre of games itself seems to be very niche and there's no coverage other than that, I think it's still best to delete, since a hit in an obscure slice of a tiny genre (the justification for "hit" is that its subreddit has 3,200 subscribers, but that's not really a high bar). There may be potential for a future article if more sources end up covering it though, which seems like a possibility given the controversial and questionable moral nature of the game. – FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 21:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.