Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temüjin (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 keep. Geschichte (talk) 07:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Temüjin (video game)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Of encyclopedic value? I have my doubts. There are a million forgotten and often dismal video games from the 80s and 90s - is this one worthy of immortality? The PC Gamer mention is a junk source - a mere mention in reference to its pending sales release; the second is ok; the third, dead. Not notable in my mind. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, per WP:NEXIST. I was able to find coverage from GameSpot, Adventure Gamers and Just Adventure   (all sources that are listed as reliable at WP:VG/S). Looking at the game's page on MobyGames, it also seems that there was a review in print magazine Computer Games Magazine. Lowercaserho (talk) 10:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly had a large number of magazine and online reviews per the Mobygames test. The nomination seems WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than motivated by actual WP:BEFORE searching. A bad game does not mean it's not a notable game (I once made Vroom in the Night Sky, which got a Destructoid score of 1/10 but still clearly notable from a Wiki perspective).ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - This may have some content beyond a passing mention, however snippet view is too limiting for me to tell for sure. I think that this passes WP:GNG due to the sources that Lowercaseho provided; I also find the deletion rationale lacking in policy of notability. The PC gamer source is adequate for its purpose; to cite the release date. Dead sources are also not indications of a lack of notability, as well. Sennecaster  ( Chat ) 17:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment So much passion, so little time. For all the criticism of this nomination, I find it curious that not a single one of the people saying keep seems to have even the slightest inclination to do anything about the sourcing, even after they've gone to the trouble to find what they think are suitable references. Everyone also seems to be forgetting that simply having coverage does not automatically establish notability: that is just the lowest common denominator of what CAN potentially establish notability. However, if there is this much passion to have zombie articles with terrible sourcing littered with clean-up notices and lingering in half-life all over Wikipedia, have at it. Actions speak louder than words though. Maybe consider an edit or two. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no need for an editor to WP:SOLVE every problem they bring up and asking editors to do that is disingenuous. Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles don't need to be good to exist if someone can prove they ought to exist. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NEXIST sources do not need to be in the article for the subject to meet notability guidelines. And in practise 99.9% of all articles will get kept if there is sufficient secondary, independent, and relable WP:SIGCOV on the subject. Jumpytoo Talk 22:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I imagine that this must prove rather exhaustive in the case of video games, because even the shoddiest productions presumably have a review or two lying around somewhere. Perhaps there need to be separate notability guidelines for the genre. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * When making articles, I just go by the WP:GNG, no more, no less. This also applies to any other topic on Wikipedia, whether it be an album few people have heard of or a bridge in the middle of nowhere. Your beef seems to be with the GNG, not with games specifically, because I don't see why games should be more stringent than TV shows, musical albums, or books. Anyone can self publish a book, so it's not like games face different challenges. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. WP:NEXIST as shown by several editors above. Now if someone is actually willing to integrade the sources into the article..... Neo-corelight (Talk) 22:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I dont have the time or experience in VG to fully integrate the sources, but I'll leave the references on the talk page if this closes as a keep. Sennecaster  ( Chat ) 01:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Poorly-cited article but it passes WP:GNG as other users provided enough evidences for it. Mann Mann (talk) 10:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep No valid reason given for deletion. And yes, having coverage is what you need to prove something is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article.  Reliable sources have been found that give it significant coverage, so it passes the general notability guidelines.   D r e a m Focus  10:54, 28 October 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.