Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quetzal: match three, let the prizes come to me


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Quetzal: match three, let the prizes come to me

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable game Arthistorian1977 (talk) 05:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 08:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * There are no sources when searching the WP:VG/S custom search engine. This is a plain delete. --Izno (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom, fails WP:GNG.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't agree with the abovementioned game notability criteria as WP:VG/S doesn't include any gambling-related sources, even mastodonts such as the Gambling Insider Magazine, EGaming Review or Total Gambler. The article categorisation might need to be revised, but for me it's a keep. Dimotika (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please provide some sources to evidence that the article topic meets the WP:GNG. You're right that WP:VG/S doesn't carry gambling sources, but that should not prevent you from doing the research to identify sources for this topic. --Izno (talk) 12:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I accept that as I couldn't provide a realiable source to proof of notability, besides some marginal game review sites. Reading the comments of the pro-delete voters, I no longer believe this article could be saved. On a separate note, I was planning to write articles about "Starburst" slot produced by [NetEnt] and "Rainbow Riches" slot produced by Scientific Games which are well known gambling titles, and have generated £millions in the last 5 years, however they are not even mentioned in the few sites that I checked from this list: WP:VG/S! Would these also risk to be marked for deletion because of WP:GNG?Dimotika (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, they'd likely be deleted then too. With creating virtually any article of any subject, if you don't have multiple third party, reliable sources that cover the subject in good detail, its likely to be deleted. The WP:GNG requires multiple sources, so in the most technical sense, you could get away with 2 sources...but historically, it usually takes more like 4-5 required to be enough to actually create any sort of decent article and persuade people in these deletion discussions. Sergecross73   msg me  20:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * But if we're saying that the reliable sources for gaming are listed in WP:VG/S, while at the same time these don't cover any gambling products, does it mean that we'd have to revise WP:VG/S, or to consider gambling and gaming as two separate topics? Dimotika (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:VG/S is a bit of a special case on Wikipedia. Its a (rather massive) collection of sources that are agreed upon to be usable or not usable on Wikipedia though a ton of various discussions from experienced editors. It's not a hard rule or policy, just a list used for guidance. If a game received coverage from those acceptable sources, you're more likely to be able to prove that a game should have its own article. But source lists like this are rather rare. There's a music variant at WP:MUSIC/SOURCES, but most subject areas don't have a big master list like this. You could always talk to WikiProject Gambling and see if there was interest in starting up such a list, but they don't seem like a very active group. For what its worth, probably any gambling-related things that are video games or mobile phone apps are probably going to be fine for using VG/S due to the massive list of sources. But for any actual gambling stuff (casinos, horse racing, fantasy football, etc) VG/S would probably not be helpful. Sergecross73   msg me  12:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to explain this in details. I believe the best would be for me to join the WikiProject Gambling and alingn on the standards and criteria for gambling articles. Thanks everyone for your energy to review and explain the weaknesses for this articleDimotika (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - no third party sources to meet the WP:GNG. I also don't buy into Dimotika's (the article creator's) argument above that gambling related sources may have covered it. As the article currently states, the game doesn't allow for real-money gambling due to it being a game on Apple's App Store, which doesn't allow for gambling. Additionally, it clearly identifies as a tile-matching video game. There's no reason to believe that video game sources would ignore this, while gambling websites would pick up on it. Sergecross73   msg me  13:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per Sergecross73, fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 21:27, 27 September 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.