Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goodboy Galaxy


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. I see a consensus to Keep this article but additional sourcing would certainly be welcome. Liz Read! Talk! 03:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Goodboy Galaxy

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG - could not find reliable, significant sources about the game besides Time Extension. The other sources from reliable outlets were just not significant coverage and amount to simple Kickstarter announcements, or are primary source interviews. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Announcements about the game in reliable sources is still coverage. Are only full reviews defined as 'significant coverage'? Oz346 (talk) 07:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * SIGCOV for games is almost always some sort of major piece of critical commentary. In rarer cases it may be some sort of "making of" article or book or a deep-dive analysis. However, announcements have little to no commentary or analysis and do not address the subject "in detail". To use the Nintendo Life article as an example, the only thing that could be called commentary rather than just quoting others is "Goodboy Galaxy certainly looks polished," which is a trivial mention. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * //Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
 * The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.
 * Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.//
 * According to wiki policy on SIGCOV. The main topic of those announcement articles is the game. But I will wait and see what others say as well. Oz346 (talk) 08:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend presenting the WP:THREE best examples of significant coverage and letting people react to those. Sergecross73   msg me  13:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If we had six published articles of this quality and length about the Three Blind Mice, including an interview, I am pretty sure we'd be happy to write an article on the band. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as there is a fundamental disagreement here about whether sources provide SIGCOV or not. We could use other voices, especially from editors working in this subject area. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong keep – Yes, the majority of the sources are about the single event of the Kickstarter campaign success, but those are still very good sources (Eurogamer, IGN). Nintendo Life considered the game of significant interest before its successful Kickstarter result, and most importantly to me gave us some really good dev info much lateron, showing longevity. Not yet used but also showing notability is SiliconEra and a brief mention in Gamespot in 2024. I do not see any reason why this article would not meet WP:N. Wikipedia is not a glorified review aggregator. I'm unfamiliar with Way Too Many Games and Time Extension, but the latter is listed as reliable. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 06:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel like you're just collecting all the reliable sources. Most of the sources you've presented are just routine game announcements. This is the only good source, but is pretty flimsy and doesn't help GNG. 🍕 Boneless Pizza! 🍕 (🔔) 12:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think sources reporting on the release of an independent game on 20-year old hardware is ever really routine. That sort of thing is pretty rare. (Also there's Time Extension of course) ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG, I don't consider announcements as significant coverage, none of them "addresses the topic in detail". Maybe if they had played the demo or watched the trailer and wrote something critically based on that, it could be considered SIGCOV but none of them did. Siliconera article's two paragraphs about the game is not enough to be considered as SIGCOV. Time Extension review is the only piece that qualifies and it's not enough. --Mika1h (talk) 09:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And the dev info brought to us through Nintendo Life? ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 11:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The interview? That's a primary source, doesn't count towards notability. --Mika1h (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You think Nintendo Life was directed/paid by the game developers to publish that? ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 11:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Interviews are primary source unless there's some significant secondary analysis by the interviewer. Only secondary sources can establish notability. See WP:PRIMARY and Interviews. --Mika1h (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mable's sources above. The WP:GNG requires third party sources to cover the subject in detail. We have multiple sources doing this. It does not matter that they're covering a game announcement or Kickstarter. The GNG does not care about that. They're third party sources publishing dedicated articles to the subject. And we have an RS review too (Time Extension) so its not like its "only game announcements" anyways. It's not a homerun, but the delete stances are holding the bar higher than what the GNG actually says... Sergecross73   msg me  18:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So let me get this straight: you are saying this is significant coverage? If not, then which other articles are you arguing provide significant coverage (besides Time Extension, which is already pretty short for a review). You claim SIGCOV exists but I am not seeing it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, the IGN, Eurogamer, and Time Extension sources. Sergecross73   msg me  20:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Eurogamer when you ignore the inline trailer/unrelated videos is only a paragraph with the barest of description. IGN is as well, when you ignore the talking about other games. I am actually flabbergasted that this would legit be considered non-trivial coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please don't summarize others comments so dishonestly. I'm having a hard time believing you're struggling to follow me this poorly with these follow up questions. Those descriptions are careless. For example, it's only the last sentence or two of the IGN source that mention other games. It's still a source largely dedicated to the subject, not a passing mention or listicle entry. Sergecross73   msg me  21:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep, there are multiple articles from multiple reliable sources covering the game. Individual articles should not be looked at in isolation. The coverage is cumulative. Oz346 (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:GNG.We have multiple reliable sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep The WPVG custom search engine yields additional coverage from Hardcore Gamer and 4gamer. Critical commentary is extremely weak, however, and the Way Too Many Games review should be removed. Time Extension and this article provide only two paragraphs combined of commentary (I have seen games with similarly lacking reception get articles though). Despite this, it looks to me that reliable sources have adequately covered pre-release and development information. This article is an odd case where its notability hinges heavily on coverage of its development but I think that still counts. LBWP (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We do also have two industry professionals (from Supercell and SFB Games) praising the game here. It's indeed not much on the reception, but that's fine. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mable and any others who have found reliable sources mentioned above.  MK  at your service.  13:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment this article is under a DYK so I'm not sure if that needs to be put on hold. JuniperChill (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That has no bearing on this AFD. Sergecross73   msg me  17:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Since people are here voting keep based on news announcements, just want to point out that WP:SBST states that routine news reports are not significant coverage, even a large amount of them. For example that Hardcore Gamer announcement, the writer doesn't provide his own commentary: "The team behind the game stated", "According to Rik, one of the leads". It's a glorified press release. --Mika1h (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please note that you're effectively citing something related to the notability of events, and the subject is not an event. Sergecross73   msg me  17:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the better thing to link to would have been WP:NOTNEWS, which essentially says the same thing but for all articles. Pointing people to Kickstarters counts as routine coverage for a gaming site, they do it all the time. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think it can be said to apply to all articles, WP:NOTNEWS seems to be referring to events and people. A video game is in another class of articles. And this article is more than just an event or announcement. Oz346 (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's for news events. The subject is not an event. Come on, people. Regulars should not be struggling with this. There are lots of times to cite NOTNEWS. Video games are not one of those times... Sergecross73   msg me  00:33, 11 July 2024 (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.