Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stars in Shadow

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. This has been relisted twice already, and there is nothing to suggest an additional relist would produce a consensus on the sourcing. If there are still concerns about the article, it can be brought to AfD again in the next few months. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stars in Shadow[edit]

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

I see only a handful of WP:VGRS: two short reviews from PCGamer and IndieGames, based only on the early access version; a news article in GameStar for the EA version that basically looks like a press release; and another news article in Kotaku AU covering the actual release. I don't think this displays notability at this time as lacking multiple reliable sources covering the game in detail, and not likely to in the near future. Izno (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added new sources to indicate its notability: Forbes, Wccftech, OPNoobs, Hooked Gamers, eXplorminate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiNiels13 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think any of those would be considered reliable sources, but I must admit, I'm more surprised about this nomination, which which does contain multiple reliable sources within it. Having a hard time coming up with a deletion rationale either... Sergecross73 msg me 14:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the sourcing present in the nomination itself. Especially the PC Gamer review, which is not what I would classify as "short" at all. Its a seven paragraph, dedicated review. Sergecross73 msg me 14:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I find it's really difficult to meet the burden of WP:NPOV when all you have is the single review, plus some churn in other works. I cited the sources I found because I must meet the WP:BEFORE bar to nominate for AFD, and starting from a shared common understanding of the sourceability of an article is better for everyone involved. My opinion is that the listed sources I found do not meet the WP:GNG bar, and the majority of sources in the article now do not meet the WP:RS bar. If you know of other reliable sources independent of the subject, or a suitable merge target, I am always available to listen (I am a merger-ist, IMO), but what's there isn't good enough. --Izno (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2017 (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.