Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Entropy (video game)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. – Joe (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Entropy (video game)[edit]

Entropy (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Taking this to AFD after the WP:PROD was removed in good faith. My reasoning was: Does not have WP:SIGCOV to become notable. Could not find a single review WP:BEFORE nomination. The only coverage is from press-release style announcements without significant coverage to pass WP:N. Jontesta (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I did see those, but they are all short news-clip announcements based off of press releases. I would feel differently if this game received a proper review that wasn't just quoting announcements from the devs. Jontesta (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete - Sources merely rehash the press release. Coverage is not significant or of sufficient depth. MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak Delete Delete: Ugh, I hate this !vote -- Odie5533 is right that there is coverage in reliable sources. I also found this Engadget piece ([1]) about a sale they had. But none of this is substantial coverage of the game itself, and I don't think it meets WP:GNG. Nomader (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Found three more sources: XGN.nl, Gamer.no, and Games.cz. I believe the US Gamer (previously linked), the XGN, and the PC Gamer source cited in the article constitute significant coverage. --Odie5533 (talk) 04:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've struck my "Delete" and made it a "Weak Delete." The Gamer.no and Games.cz sources both cite the press release directly, and are basically just reprints of it. The XGN article seems a little bit more in-depth, but these are all just... kind of trivial mentions still. It's mentions of sales and press releases -- there's no reviews or significant development things. I could see an argument for !keep passing muster here though now more than I did before (thanks for following up with more sources). Nomader (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete I am not seeing WP:SIGCOV, just a lot of trivial news mentions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 08:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep The PC Gamer and XGN articles provide commentary beyond press releases. Daranios (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Personally, if this article does end up being kept, it needs a lot of work and a cleanup. I see an overall lack of content and information on the article, and a lot WP:MOS errors. While there may be coverage from reliable sources, the fact remains that this article needs cleanup. And personally, I would rather see a cleanup than a deletion if possible. Zekerocks11 (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinions are mixed. But it never hurts to "clean up" an article before an AFD closure, in fact, sometimes it can make a big difference in the outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete. We have more than a dozen sources but I'm still not seeing significant secondary coverage. All of the sources cite press releases (either paraphrased or quoted) or interviews. The most secondary analysis we get is essentially "I guess we'll see when the game comes out"—but they never did, apparently. Woodroar (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. Routine, non-significant coverage. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Keep - coverage seems reasonable enough but I'll admit the article could use a bit more fine tuning and information about the game itself. BogLogs (talk) 12:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BogLogs can you please name two examples where there is at least 2 solid paragraphs coveraging the subject? In two different reliable sources? I’ll change my vote to keep if these can be located. Where is the significant coverage? MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Maxna, thanks for asking me. In the discussion above they are already listed by here are the sources again US Gamer, Game Informer, VG247, Game Reactor. I'm not sure exactly what a solid paragraph constitutes for you but I think those more than provide enough for your request. In fact after looking at them I'm considering changing my own vote from weak keep to keep. BogLogs (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.