Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gebeta (video game)


 * 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 redirect to Mancala. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Gebeta (video game)

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

Sources are either press releases or not significant coverage. No better sourcing found * Pppery * it has begun... 23:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Most sources in the lede best covered the notability of the game; for example, and  are likely credible sources and described the content of game releases, gameplay, publisher and developer. Most sources could pass WP:NVG as they are largely published by independent, variable sources that could build reliability and verification. The Supermind (talk)
 * WP:NVG is an essay, and you also ignore two things from it: "Commentary should be critical and detailed" (not the case with the first source you posted) and "Independent sources must not be primary sources, press releases" (the second reference literally has a "press release" tag at the top, in case the way of how it's written wasn't a good enough tell). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Unless better sources can be found/shown. Currently it fails WP:SIGCOV. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per The Supermind. There are reliable sources for this game and I believe it passes WP:SIGCOV. If there is a valid merge target I would also consider that to WP:PRESERVE this. Archrogue (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Such as? The source you added is still not WP:SIGCOV, as it says nothing more than "this game exists. It won an award." * Pppery * it has begun... 19:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you read about The Trent Online. It is an Internet Newspaper from Nigeria and the game was adequately covered by Mitchel Jordon. I think this one is not like press article, read as a newspaper. What do you think? The Supermind (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Pointing to sources that were already in the article at the time I AfD-ed it is not convincing because I already read them and decided they weren't sufficient before starting this AfD (as, presumably, did Zxcvbnm before !voting delete). The article you pointed two is not significant coverage, just a routine announcement. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete The current refs are non-SIGCOV or RS, IMO, and fails WP:NPRODUCT, which IMHO should be required for video games. Ref 1 is a short, non-notable press release; even the ref, with an iffy about us page, probably isn't reliable. The same is true with ref 2, which is clearly marked as a press release (non-significant). Ref 3 is also non-significant, covering the publisher with a 1-paragraph coverage (SIGCOV needs at least one long paragraph); the source might be an RS but lacks any editorial policies, either way, it's not significant. Ref 4 is another duplicate of ref 1. The 5th ref list a minor award called AppsAfrica Awards, IMO, an award could be considered notable if it has a WP page (this is kind of criteria for WP:NWEB) which this lacks. The ref for The Trent refs, which is somehow duplicated for ref 6 and 8 with the same URL and content, is more convincing but still a press release, IMHO, same with ref 7, explicitly marked as a press release in the ref section. Ref 9 is also a trivial mention. So, with none of the refs being significant (not even considering their lack of reliability), even WP:GNG isn't met, not to mention WP:NPRODUCT, so deletion is the best IMO. VickKiang (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I found new website named "Shega" that details about the game. In its information page, the website described itself as independent reliable source that reads as "We produce high-value articles, analyses, reports, visuals, and a weekly newsletter." What do you think about it? The Supermind (talk) 09:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies again, but I just don't think, unfortunately, that this article is notable enough right now, despite it being very interesting. For WP:NPRODUCT guidelines, we need refs that are significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. Significant needs much more than a press coverage, but this feels to be a routine annoucement (IMHO, if we had at least one review from a reliable ref, together with these more trival coverage, the article's notability is borderline, if there're 2, I'd vote weak keep). But this is mainly quotes from the publishers, sadly. Secondly, only having an about us page isn't enough. Its about us page isn't bad at all, and at least it provides team info, but there's no editorial policies as far as I can see, the latter very important in differentiating a SPS and an established ref. IMHO, a RS needs to at least have its editor-in-chief or editors to appear in a couple of other RS, I just did a quick search, and couldn't find any. So, IMHO the website is not straight-cut reliable. With reliability borderline and SIGCOV not met, IMHO this ref isn't enough, but if you could find one or two long, reliable reviews, I'd be happy to vote weak keep. Many thanks and have a nice day (or night, depending on your time zone, of course):) VickKiang (talk) 11:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per the excellent research by VickKiang above. I further did searches of all the sources on WP:VG/RS and found literally zero sources unfortunately. It's a shame, because it seems like a really interesting subject for an article and I don't begrudge recreating it if more sources are written, but for now, it's a clear delete !vote. Nomader  ( talk ) 19:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Finally I would like to support the deletion, there is no clear RS with significant coverage in the web and I searched thoroughly and the article entirely covered by press releases and more RSs cover the company of the product rather than for itself. But I hope I would like request for restoration after sources are available in the future. And also I would create a page for Qene Technology. The Supermind (talk) 10:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete does not pass our notability guidelines. Lightburst (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Mancala, per WP:ATD. Sources are sufficient to say in a broader article that this exists, but do not support independent notability. BD2412  T 04:58, 31 August 2022 (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.