Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squirrel King


 * 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. Michig (talk) 11:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Squirrel King

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

Fails WP:GNG, no reviews or other significant coverage in reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I did a search but I found nothing.Timur9008 (talk) 12:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I found this game covered in "The Mega Drive/Genesis Encyclopedia Book" with a short writeup. I don't think that is enough by itself but I usually believe these older titles published on major consoles are notable. I would like to see older games preserved on Wikipedia somehow even if that's merging to some other list. Archrogue (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that the game in question is an unlicensed "bootleg" title, which often means far less mainstream attention (at least in US) compared to contemporary games published following the normal procedures. NasssaNser - T 02:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "I would like to see older games preserved on Wikipedia somehow" - see WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Wikipedia is mainly for preserving notable content, and explicitly against preserving all content that ever existed. All books ever published, all movies ever filmed, etc. do not have to be on Wikipedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Realizing that it's a bootleg title does change my opinion somewhat. It seems less likely to have any real reviews and less likely to pass WP:GNG. I would support some WP:ATD but I cannot say this should be kept. Archrogue (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact that a title is bootleg reduces notability instead of contributes to it, in my opinion. NasssaNsertalk 06:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm not seeing the sourcing that helps it meet the WP:GNG. Largely unsourced, and some if the wording suggests the writer was guessing/speculating as it is. ("Appears to be" type wording.) Sergecross73   msg me  15:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per @Sergecross73 Zekerocks11 (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2022 (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.