Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Were Here (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 delete. Although there are a mix of keep and delete arguments, none of the arguments shows any substantial coverage from reliable sources for this original game, nor gives any other substantial argument for notability. Therefore consensus is that this topic is non-notable. There are sources for a sequel, which seems likely notable. Should anyone ask, I will gladly restore this content to a user sandbox per so that the verbiage can be used as background for the notable topic (the sequel). 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

We Were Here (game)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable video game. The extent of the (reliable) coverage is an article in Rock Paper Shotgun and an interview at Gamasutra. Not enough to pass notability criteria. The sequel doesn't either, only getting a serious mention from PC Gamer and Adventure Gamers. Being forced to combine 2 games together to make them notable is not a very good sign that it is fit for Wikipedia. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The question is whether Wikipedia should be inclusive or exclusive. I vote inclusive.  The article does no harm to people not interested in the game. And people who are interested in the game can find out more about the game and its creators. I suspect it is harder for a Dutch game to attract a following than it would be for an American game, and harder for an indie game to attract a following than for a routine game by a big game company. "We Were Here" has won one award and been nominated for a couple of others. Why not give it a chance? Rick Norwood (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "Give it a chance" suggests that if you put it on Wikipedia, it will become more notable. That goes against WP:NOTADVERTISING. The game should already be notable before an article gets made. I have no prejudice against recreation if one of the games is mentioned more in reliable sources, but currently both games are not individually notable on their own. The sequel has a number of reviews, but none of them seem to come from trusted outlets.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * We Were Here Too reviews from the WP:VG/S list: PCGamer, Gamer.nl, Aventure Gamers, Just Adventure, and a number of other announcements and other coverage. Seems reasonably notable. We Were Here actually does not. Probably needs a rework to be predominantly about the sequel game. Keep generally. --Izno (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This page has virtually nothing about the sequel. Would that not be a "Delete" this as non-notable with no prejudice towards creating an article about We Were Here Too?ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggested draftifying another recently in a similar circumstance, but that was two entirely disparate items (a company and its video game). The two topics here are likely to be significantly similar. I'd rather save the history and verbiage so someone else can take up the "rewrite this to be about the sequel" predominantly (and likely with a subsequent move). --Izno (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I actually had asked this some time ago on the VG project after searching sources; the sequel got some attention that could be GNG notable but not the first, though the first is alluded to in the discussion of the sequel. To that end I was thinking this is the type of game better covered as a series article, both games fully discussed (not separate) in this series article, since there's no way the first game can survive as a standalone. So either have a standalone page for "We Were Here Too" that mentions the first game, or a series page for "We Were Here", but we can't have a standalone "We Were Here" game page. --M asem  (t) 13:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per the demonstrated RS coverage above. Phediuk (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per above. -- VitalPower | talk  12:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge or Delete the sequel appears notable due to the reviews, but I can't find if it has a page on the site. This page is promotional and unsourced and sourcing is weak - it does not pass WP:GNG and is arguably promotional in nature, and it does not inherit notability from the successful sequel. An article on the series would likely be notable. SportingFlyer  talk  17:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is nothing sourced to "keep". No prejudice against an article about the sequel if the sourcing exists. But yeah even that's a stretch—I wouldn't consider Adventure Gamers reliable (or Just Adventure, for that matter) (not watching, please )  czar  02:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete if the sequel and/or series is notable, write an article on that, but this isn't notable. Also, the text here doesn't seem very useful, though if someone wants it to write an article on the series no opposition to userification. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:14, 5 June 2018 (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.