Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul Survivor (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Survivor (game)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Moonriddengirl's comment, "This does not seem likely to survive another AFD - all sources seem to be primary.", sums it up nicely. Laun chba ller 12:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any independent reliable sources that have written about this game in any depth.- Mr X 17:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no coverage by reliable sources. Not even close to passing the GNG Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lots of directory entries but no actual editorial coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This was actually previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1337 Gallery a few months ago. The sources are largely the same and other than this releasing, there's nothing to show that this is any different than the previous entry. I may close this early. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've decided against speedying this, as it'd be better to have this run through a new AfD based on the fact that the game has released. As others have noted, there are several routine database entries but nothing that would actually count as a reliable source. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Giant Bomb is a notable site and has an entry for this, but there's nothing there at said entry. Rest of cites are WP:PRIMARY. Majority of links on a quick search are links to play the game, with no discussion/reviews of it. There's something here, but not enough to pass WP:GNG. --McDoob AU93 15:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Giant Bomb may be a notable web site, but it is only a quasi-reliable source. It exercises editorial oversight in its reviews, but a large portion of the site is a wiki including the games listing which covers 43013 games and is user-editted. The Soul Survivor is just one of the 43013 entries, and its presence on Giant Bomb fails to nudge the notability needle further by even a picometre. -- Whpq (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence this is any more notable than the other 10 squintillion other available mobile games out there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[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.