Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrestling Spirit

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling Spirit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) The series games have only received two major reviews, as currently recorded, and there isn't much else in a video game reliable sources custom Google search and Google Books search. Anything that needs to be said about this topic can be said in a redirect to Grey Dog Software, the developer. czar 02:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 02:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Articles created before 2008, doesn't have to meet WP:GNG. --OGfromtheGut (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's patently false. Wikipedia guidelines apply equally to all articles irrespective of when they were created. There's no grandfathering here. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 05:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Props for a unique argument -- unfortunately it is utterly worthless. What could have possibly led you to conclude that creation date could somehow exclude an article from meeting Wikipedia's criteria for notability? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 08:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. OGfromtheGut, I hate to pile on but that's not a reason to vote "keep". Sorry. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Total tripe. Op47 (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. I could find nothing convincing from third-party sources to indicate notability; most of what exists is either first-party, promotional, or fandom, none of which satisfies WP:RS. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 18:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. For the first game, there this archived review in PC Today and this archived review from GameSpy. The second game has a review from PC Gamer indexed here by Metacritic. This doesn't count for much, but there's also a top 30 list from Digital Spy that features the second game, and the series got a trivial mention in this article from Vice. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable wrestling game. Regarding the mentions it has, they are all trivial mentions. World of Mixed Martial Arts also probably isn't worthy of a topic. - Safetine (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As above, it's a non-notable game with trivial mentions. After 8 years, you would think there would be something to show it's notable, however there isn't that I could find. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The PC Gamer review can hardly be called trivial. Other reviews help support this notability. Others, like [1] haven't even been mentioned yet in this AfD. There have been quite a few delete votes, but they all ignore the evidence supporting notability for this series. GNG is satisfied. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Operation Sports accepts fan submissions judging by its About Us page at http://www.operationsports.com/about.php:

"If you have sports games news, screenshots, videos or other editorial content which you would like to see featured on Operation Sports please send an email to news@operationsports.com."

It is not a reliable source. - Safetine (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It doesn't say that just anything submitted will be posted. The site has an editorial staff. A quick search for the author, Aaron Holbert, finds him referenced on other several other sites, and he was featured in this article by the Washington Post. He's got a bit of credibility, so I wouldn't write him off as an unreliable source. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I see where you're coming from, but most reliable sources don't accept articles written by readers. You don't see the New York Times accepting reader submissions. - Safetine (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as we can wait for better and there's nothing particularly better convincing from the article itself to suggest anything worthwhile acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 07:33, 5 June 2016 (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.