Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kindergarten (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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Kindergarten (video game)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG, sourcing consists almost entirely of a multi-part YouTube walkthrough, other YouTube gameplay, a GameSpot overview page (not an article), and only one single article. Additionally, the articles is written like an advertisement and consists of a lot of trivial content (such as achievement lists). Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 09:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Here are some sources not included in the article that could be used to prove notability:

Jamesjpk (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * El-Observador
 * Vid95
 * GameFaqs
 * Basegame
 * Metacritic
 * Gamezdb
 * Tusjuegosgratis
 * Steamspy
 * Indiedb
 * GamersofIndia
 * PCGamingWiki
 * MyGames
 * VideoGameReviews
 * Jollyriffic
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Note that most of the sites listed above by Jamesjpk are not reliable for purposes of establishing notability. For example, gamefaqs, indiedb and pcgamingwiki are all user generated. Steamspy is a statistics site that lists all games on Steam (Not indepth coverage). At least eight of remaining sources (Vid95, basegame, gamezdb, gamersofindia, mygames, videogamereviews, Tusjuegosgratis and jollyriffic) are directories that provide little information and are clearly mirrors of each other (Note they all share similar formatting and the URL component "59169"). -- ferret (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The article creator had, for some reason, removedthe above deletion sorting to the Video games AFD discussion page, as well as the categorization of the Afd. These of course are two ways that the broader community can reach a consensus. I've raised the matter with Jamesjpk, and restored the tag and category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 7:16 pm, Today (UTC−4)
 * Delete Per nom. Unable to find any sourcing using reliable sources at WP:VG/RS. Article's sourcing consists mostly of user generated content from unreliable sources and directory listings. Note comment above about sources listed by creator. Disclosure: I've removed a fair bit of content from the article based on several policies and guidelines. -- ferret (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Ferret's analysis of James's source list. Almost all of the sources are unreliable (many, like Gamefaqs, and anything related to a wiki, have an active consensus against their use at WP:VG/S, due to recurring issues with them being unreliable sources.) The remaining source are not significant coverage. For example, the Metacritic page contains zero professional reviews, or really any content at all. Linking to things like that is much more persuasive in proving that it probably doesn't have the reliable source coverage to meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73   msg me  12:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable game with no viable third-party citations. Zero of the sources listed above meet notability requirements. sixty nine   • speak up •  06:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Reliable video game source search returned no results with significant coverage. --The1337gamer (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2017 (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.