Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fear and Hunger

Fear and Hunger

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Fear & Hunger

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Fear and Hunger (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 · TWL)

I say Keep, as I believe the game as garnered further notoriety between the time of the deletion discussion and now. The page is adequately sourced and it has been established that it is notable. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• I don't really see why this page should be deleted. I was unaware that a previous Fear and Hunger article had been deleted, but I think another discussion should be had on whether this article deserves to be deleted. It is my opinion that the multiple articles from Rock Paper Shotgun, CBR, and DualShockers all fall under WP:GNG. I think another discussion should be had on whether it does or does not fall under WP:GNG. I don't think they're the strongest sources in the world but I've definitely seen Indie game articles that have been kept on far shakier grounds --NimoEdit (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• Delete @Pyraminxsolver: AfD is for when you want an article to be deleted, not kept. Nevertheless the article should still be deleted, as the notability has not changed since the previous AfD held mere months ago. It fails WP:GNG with most sources not being from WP:RS. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• Keep. DualShockers is situational, the most recent discussion[1] is pretty promising, and the author of these two pieces[2][3] is a professional journalist in the entertainment industry. Those plus RPS should suffice for GNG. And note that one of those DualShockers pieces is new since the last AfD, so the coverage is indeed deeper now than a couple months ago. —siroχo 05:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  Even assuming we count DualShockers as a reliable source, per WP:GNG, "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." The second one is also about a totally different game, the sequel. So we'd preferably need one other source, and CBR is simply a content farm. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• Keep, the combination of the first DualShockers source and the Rock Paper Shotgun article is enough to just barely pass WP:GNG. Zxcvbnm is correct that if it were just the two DS articles this wouldn't be notable, but the combination of the first one with RPS is enough to showcase notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  It's incredibly rare that 2 reviews would be considered GNG passing, especially when one of them is from a situational source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  I have added 3 additional non-english reviews, all of which I believe should pass WP:RS. Surely this should be considered enough to pass GNG? NimoEdit (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)