Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lula games


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Lula games

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Lacks multiple substantial RS coverage. Zero refs. Epeefleche (talk) 06:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: As far as I can see, basically all the games of this series have received some coverage in specialized sites and all they have significant Google News entries (mainly reviews) in multiple language, as 3d News, Techline,  Проекты CNews, Gamesurf, Total Video Games. A search in Googe Books reveals they're even covered in notable "mainstream" newspapers and magazines as Le Monde, Panorama and L'espresso... They meet GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I clicked on the above google books search, and can't see what you are seeing in your gbooks search -- you linked not to the articles you indicate you found, but to the publications.  Could you link to the substantial coverage in those papers?  Thanks.  Also, as to the gnews entries you point to, can you identify which you feel are RSs?  Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I linked the Panorama ref in the main article. Le Monde and L'espresso (1999 collections) do not have preview so I can't judge in which contest they mentioned the games. Quite all the above entries appear, at first glance, reliable (no self-published, no blogs, no wiki sites). CNews.ru is, according Russian WP, the web version of a monthly magazine dedicated to telecommunications, technology, software and computer games. Techline appears the same (a web-magazine about technology and Internet). 3DNews, according Russian WP, is a 15 years old online magazine about communication technologies. Total Video Games appears to be a News/Rewiews/Previews site about videogames. Gamesurf is part of Tiscali web portals. Google News archive include several more sites of questionable reliability, as T-Online or Jeux Video. Furthermore, there are several news entries about Lula in GameZone such as this, this or this. I've also found a review of a Lula game by Aleks Krotoski for The Guardian, here. I also added in the main article a ref to a review by PC Gamer.
 * I even found a mention of Lula in the German cultural magazine "Ästhetik & Kommunikation", 112-115. There's only a snippet preview, so it's not clear if there's only a trivial mention or something more substantial, but the text visible in the snippet ("Gegen die Konkurrenz von Busenstar Lula aus dem Spiel Wet-The Sexy Empire oder Nikki Pandämonium (Pandämonium 2) und anderen digitalen Sexbomben hat Lara Croft sich durchgesetzt, weil ihre Designer sie nicht allein mit Kurven...", trad. "The competition between Tittie Star Lula of the game "Wet Attack: The Empire Cums Back" and Pandemonium Nikki ("Pandemonium 2") and the other digital bombshells Lara Croft has become established, since their designers do not only with curves...") seems to confirm the notability of Lula games.
 * I even found a review of a Lula game in MyTech.it, a news entry in Computer and Video Games, a trivial mention in a Corriere della Sera article, a La Repubblica's review . - Cavarrone (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 14:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  05:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The last game's notability looks fine, the first one was covered in magazines at the time IIRC. This article is effectively a list, having the other games here makes more sense than having them spun out into their own articles unless someone finds and uses significant coverage to expand them into their own articles. Blech, vanilla crap. Someoneanother 13:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, more than adequate coverage from secondary sources. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, and weak for a reason: It serves a purpose as a list of games in the franchise, and will help keep pointless stubs from being created, but the idea is actually quite poor that we should keep lame VG articles on the sole basis of some random reviews in gamer magazines. These are publications that, guess what, get free games and gear to review (a COI) and will review pretty much anything to fill pages and get buyers and advertisers (usually the companies whose products they review, a double COI). It's really questionable as "non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources" (especially the first two of those three points). I know that a lot of VG-related AfDs treat the appearance of some reviews in mainstream gamer rags as "proof" of notability, but it's wrongheaded and results in more trivial, never-to-improve articles being kept on video games than on any other topic on Wikipedia. It really, really needs to be rethought. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 05:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you taken a look at these reviews? Theoretically you could be true, but in this case if you check the reviews you will find that basically all them panned these games, in many cases heavily... Cavarrone (talk) 06:38, 20 February 2012 (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.