Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slap City (video game)

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slap City (video game)

[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)

The article has barely any content and virtually no sources. This same user attempted to create the same article previously, which was deemed incomplete and moved to a draft space back in July; the user has not done any of the recommended work and has instead recreated the article with no changes from the draft. Suggest deleting the article once more until the original concerns are actually addressed. Cyberlink420 (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was surprised to not find significant coverage of this game, especially after the developers went on to release Nickelodeon All-Star Brawl, but it doesn't look like it got any reviews from the usual major outlets. It's been included in a couple list articles [1] [2] but no full reviews from reliable sources. Ultimately fails GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in ShackNews and Rock Paper Shotgun, both of which are considered reliable at WP:WikiProject Video games/Sources. I also found a review at a site which isn't mentioned on that page. Mlb96 (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those two are good, but they should be added to the existing draft first. And I've never heard of PixelDie, but no other articles on Wikipedia cite it, and I don't think it would pass as a reliable source under WP:VG/RS, so I don't think it can be used. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources don't actually have to be in the article to count towards notability; see WP:NEXIST. Mlb96 (talk) 04:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But two sources aren't nearly enough, and that doesn't address the fact that the article as it stands now is virtually empty. Hence why I still maintain the article should be deleted and the draft it was copied from be continually improved upon until it's actually ready. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the Metacritic test, and the sources brought forward do not indicate WP:SIGCOV. This is undoubtedly a non-notable game unless better quality sources, such as reviews from reliable outlets, can be found._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you care to explain how the sources I posted don't meet WP:SIGCOV instead of just making a vague wave towards the policy? Mlb96 (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  First of all, the snippiness is not appreciated since the WP:BURDEN is to provide proof of notability, not to point out the lack of it. However, that said, the ShackNews article is not an analysis of the game, just an announcement post for a streamed demonstration of the game, so it doesn't count at all. The Rock, Paper, Shotgun article is also a fairly short announcement post that the game exists. It has a slight amount of analysis, calling it "small but respectable", but doesn't ascend to the level of WP:SIGCOV. And the review is not from a reliable source, the writing style is clearly amateurish and I have doubts if it went through the editorial process. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Not entirely sure which part of my post was "snippy," but I appreciate the response. Mlb96 (talk) 06:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  "Would you care to explain" sounds accusatory. "If you wouldn't mind, could you explain" or "If possible, could you explain" would be more polite. Similarly, claiming I am making a "vague wave" is suggesting some level of bad faith editing (or at least lazy editing) on my part. (Not to mention I didn't "just" point to the policy - I did give an explanation of why - that it needs more reliable sources.) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking significant coverage. I'm honestly surprised that there is no buzz around this game at all, but going through sources only shows the smallest of news snippets, such as the early access release and a stream announcement on Shacknews. Mlb96 already found both of these sources above. I found nothing else; not a single review in a reliable outlet ("Pixeldie" is not reliable in this instance). IceWelder [✉] 08:40, 23 November 2021 (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.