Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minotaur Hotel


 * 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. Sources provided are of low-value and article do not meet WP:GNG. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Minotaur Hotel

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails GNG and NRVE. Current sources do not indicate notability, and a search for sources gives either mirrors of the MQGF, or passing mentions. Kotaku article may be the only thing that can be a reliable source, but I am unsure of its significant coverage; it does say the game exists, but only in one paragraph. It was given one Bronze award from a games festival.

WhoAteMyButter ( 📨talk │ 📝contribs ) 04:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  WhoAteMyButter  ( 📨talk │ 📝contribs ) 04:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I added extra sources to the main article, some extra information from said sources,including the dissertations where the game was cited and featured,I'm doing my best since I don't speak portuguese, I'll add some extra information when I have the time to improve the article.
 * Question how's the game own wiki not considered significant coverage? MCarlos (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair. Even so, it wouldn't count as a reliable source regardless because it's not independent nor is it reliable. It's a wiki, and falls under the same category as FANDOM. WhoAteMyButter  ( 📨talk │ 📝contribs ) 23:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm going to improve the article with all the other sources that I cited in this discussion in the next couple days, they are a mix of dissertations, thesis and articles talking about the game. MCarlos (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as for verifiable sources
 * the game was cited in a thesis publication for the Minas Gerais university
 * I did not add it to the main article, because I can read very little Portuguese (page 5 ref. 10)
 * https://periodicos.ufac.br/index.php/tropos/article/view/3958/2451
 * the author was also featured in the https://www.ohhey.gay/ site https://www.ohhey.gay/blog/minotaur-hotel
 * this is an example of you need X years of experience for the position, but anyone will give you a chance to get the experience
 * the game was also cited 7 times in this dissertation https://repositorio.ufmg.br/handle/1843/36963 the problem is the same as before, I can read very little Portuguese
 * the game was featured in this article https://mrhands.substack.com/p/naughty-list-25
 * and the author (not the game) was interviewed in this article https://mrhands.substack.com/p/chunky-men-and-the-people-who-love
 * the main problem with the game is that it's not an US-centric game about a niche thematic coming from a marginalized community, but it's still a valid addition
 * another factor to consider in matters of WP:GNG, this game is a non-profit project in a for-profit world, they won't get a massive coverage because they aren't looking for money or clients, I see that a very aggressive point to make when the original author isn't looking for money or publicity, the coverage they got was mostly people going out of their way to feature the project, not because they were being paid to do it MCarlos (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's unfortunate, but, if a subject won't get much coverage because it is small and it's niche, then why does it need a Wikipedia article about it? If sources won't cover it because it's niche, why does that mean that we must cover it instead? BUTITEXISTS. The existence of a subject does not mean it is notable. WhoAteMyButter  ( 📨talk │ 📝contribs ) 03:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I have updated the source assessment table. In short, the new sources still do not count towards GNG about the game. WhoAteMyButter ( 📨talk │ 📝contribs ) 23:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Clear fail of WP:GNG, barely received coverage from the gaming press.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * how can a request for an article that is somewhat well written be fulfilled when you have an article in the similar vein that looks like this stay
 * Raptor Boyfriend
 * and even articles like this, half of the references are the own game kickstarter Coming Out on Top the news coverage is only used for the reception
 * article with a single reference akin to kotaku Animamundi: Dark Alchemist
 * sourceless: Sukisho
 * again, single SELF reference Zettai Fukuju Meirei
 * yes, this is a new game and it's even under development still, it won't get a lot of coverage
 * I'm sorry, but not every game needs to be reviewed by some AAA newspaper, specially when they are niche and indie and specially when they are from marginalized groups
 * my plan was to write articles for all of the games listed in Melbourne Queer Games Festival, but I haven't played many of them, but if I have to find a big newspaper article for each of them, it's a pointless task, since many of them are by small indie developers, not by some studio that gets news coverage MCarlos (talk) 12:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, for a response to that please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As for your argument that "it won't get a lot of coverage", see WP:TOOSOON. Once it gets a lot of coverage, it's fine to appear on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is NOT an advertising platform to assist in getting that coverage if it doesn't already have it, nor is it an advocacy platform for any specific group (WP:NOTADVOCACY). ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to use those two arguments as my base for anything, my point was that, there are weaker articles that are citing there just because people dropped a bunch of sources and nothing else in projects that were for-profit and nobody batted an eye, see my other thread in the discussion so you can see the game has the coverage in other languages, the problem is that for this discussion people will only consider valid English sources
 * the game has been cited more than once in Brazilian universities thesis and dissertations, but I don't speak Portuguese, I made the article in English because it's the language I speak MCarlos (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That is untrue, people absolutely will consider other language sources. I have used Japanese and European sources fairly often to prove notability. If you have found sources in Portugese then they are very much presentable as evidence. That said, with the dearth of coverage in the gaming press, they'd probably have to be fairly significant and numerous, which seems unlikely.
 * More likely this is an example of WP:TOOSOON and we are better off waiting for the game's release. There is WP:NORUSH to make an article about it.
 * It's most likely "nobody batted an eye" simply because no eyes were on the article in the first place. Anyone can make an article, and not everyone checks what articles have been made daily for non-notable ones, there are way too few people for that.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * the problem is that I don't speak Portuguese and I don't want to rely in stuff like google translate to extract the information, since they are thesis and dissertations with overly technical language MCarlos (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are unsure about that, then it is probably a better idea to wait until there are sufficient English language sources. I am not fluent in Portugese either, but simply being cited is not the same as a dissertation written about the subject. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I know because dissertation have English abstracts and they popup right away in google, the dissertations are about LGTB topics in video games for a gender studies dissertation and a data algorithms dissertation, and the citations link to the game devlog that it's in English more or less, explaining what's being written in the dissertation, I posted all that in a previous comment in the discussion MCarlos (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have updated the SA Table with the interview blog. It does not qualify either. WhoAteMyButter  ( 📨talk │ 📝contribs ) 02:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC) The current sources do not indicate notability as they are either self-published (such as an inteview), not reliable (such as a fan-wiki), or not significant coverage (like a listing for something). Searching for sources does not bring any that meet WP:V or WP:RS. Article fails WP:GNG and the summary of WP:NGAME. WhoAteMyButter ( 📨talk │ 📝contribs ) 02:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with the noms analysis of the sources, and did not find any sources otherwise that are significant. To note, there is significant coverage of a different game with the same name in a textbook and a museum's magazine. Jumpytoo Talk 04:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete or Userfy if we want to be generous. This seems promotional, and the game isn't even released yet, WP:TOOSOON case at best. Few niche references mention this, mostly in passing, the closer we get to SIGCOV the less reliable and independent the sources become. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  10:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Article and sources do not establish notability. Avilich (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Concur with nom's rationale and excellent source assessment. Does not meet notability requirements. Pilaz (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2021 (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.