Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bug Fables: The Everlasting Sapling

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. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 07:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bug Fables: The Everlasting Sapling

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable indie game. One brief article about its trailer (and two non-independent sources) is not sufficient to support a claim of notability. BilCat (talk) 11:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, technically per myself since the nomination rationale is my PROD rationale :) De-PROD'd by creator with rationale "Important game" - but of course no sources were added to substantiate this. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick Google search turned up numerous RS articles about it. A few below:

Looks good enough to me. Phediuk (talk) 06:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The main problem about this one is that the coverage it gets from reliable sources is purely WP:ROUTINE and expected for any video game announced: "to launch", "announced", "set to release", "out today", "comes to a certain platform" and other things, with basic info about the game slightly altered from press releases. That being said, I found a very good source detailing the game's development at Red Bull [1], but that is it sadly. The Gamer seems to be situational leaning to unreliable source per the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#THEGAMER, questionably/likely unreliable like Go Nintendo and Nintendo Insider mentioned here and everything else is in lines of the RPS/Destructoid/NLife/GRadar routine sources posted above (also RPGSite, 4Gamer or Video Games Chronicle). That led me to conclusion that this game fails WP:GNG. It may be notable after the consoles release at the end of this month, but not now and at this point of time. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The game is significant. -Splinemath (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simply asserting significance is meaningless without sources to back it up. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or back to draft). I agree with Jovanmilic97, it's WP:CHURNALISM, the same bit of information in slightly different words. There's nothing to go on, really. Maybe it's WP:TOOSOON and move back to draft, so when it gets released it might get some coverage. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has a Metacritic rating that includes two video game reliable sources that complement those provided by Phediuk: RPG Site and Vandal. TheGamer also reviewed it but the WikiProject does not yet have a consensus on their reliability. Anarchyte (talk • work) 13:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Striking my vote due to the newfound reference at RPGSite (which appeared after the AfD has started!). That, the Vandal source and Red Bull article should make it for a WP:GNG pass now. Plus, I am positive it will be reviewed by Nintendo Life and/or Nintendo World Report when the game releases on Switch. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been reached as Keep.-Splinemath (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As expected, more coverage in WP:VG/RS has appeared after the console release, [2], [3], [4] and [5]. Combined with sources above, it now meets WP:GNG without any question. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The game has gotten much more exposure thanks to the console release, and the article's pageviews have greatly increased since the beginning of May. More people are interested in the game, so keeping this article is the right thing to do. The Switch version already has amazing reviews. from critics. Condontdoit296 (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above, article now seems to pass WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, RS bear out notability. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2020 (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.