Fear & Hunger : There is an overwhelming consensus that Super Eyepatch Wolf is not a reliable source.  Therefore, this indie game appears to fail WP:GNG by a fair margin.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 19:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Video games .  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 19:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Question : Anything concrete on the reliability of Superjump ?  Daranios ( talk ) 21:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Under "Team" it states it is a writers collective and is comprised mostly of contributors without a dedicated writing staff, so I'd probably err on the side of "not".  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 21:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep - seems to have a small amount of coverage from various published sources ( CRB , Rock, Paper, Shotgun Niche Gamer [which from my research, doesn't seem to be terribly small). Not terribly notable, but I'd suspect it barely passes WP:VGN WP:VG/S at the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightoftheswords281 ( talk • contribs ) WP:VG/S classifies Niche Gamer as distinctly unreliable and CBR as situational and not counting towards notability (technically not directly on the page but it's run by the same people as GameRant/ScreenRant). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Knightoftheswords281 : I assume you meant to link Wikipedia:Notability (video games) rather than Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter ?  As a WikiProject essay it has very little persuasive power.  @ Zxcvbnm : I'm equally troubled by WP:VG/S making determinations of "generally unreliable" etc. based solely on discussions on a very low WP:CONLEVEL .  Ljleppan ( talk ) 07:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The last discussion about Niche Gamer brought up this as recently as 2022, so you tell me if it should be considered a reliable source.  Because to me, that alone should be disqualifying in the extreme.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 11:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I meant WP:VG/S , not WP:VGN .  - Knightoftheswords281 ( Talk · Contribs ) 16:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete sources like Niche Gamer aren't just unreliable because of the consensus at WP:VG/S , but by application of the widely accepted policy documented at WP:V .  "Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."  RPS would be the only reliable source here, and still not enough coverage to support an article.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 14:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete As I commented above, I put pretty much zero weight on essays such as WP:VG/S or WP:NVG .  As far as I can determine, there's no community-endorsed subject-specific notability guideline for video games, so this all reduced to WP:GNG .  Of the references currently in the article, #1 and #7 are interviews (and thus non-independent), #2 and #4 are too short for my taste, #5 is a self-published video essay on Youtube and #8 is a store page.  This leaves #3 (a medium-length segment in a longer piece in Superjump ), #6 (a medium length piece in Rock Paper Shotgun ) and #9 (a medium-length piece in Niche Gamer ).  I don't see any reason to not count #3 and #6 as contributing towards a WP:GNG pass.  While there's no strict community consensus on how many sources are needed to satisfy the multiple requirement of GNG, I believe three is rather commonly accepted as a reasonable threshold.  This leaves us with the question of ref #9's reliability.  On a surface level, the piece appears to be of sufficient length to not be dismissed instantly, but there appear to be legitimate concerns about the site e.g. stealing content from other websites.  I'm also not impressed by the use of what appears to be an anonymous (or rather, pseudonymous) author.  All told, we appear to have two sources that are at least decent, and then a bunch that do not contribute towards GNG.  I've always found these kinds of cases rather tricky: two is, technically, multiple .  but given that both are relatively short and e.g. metacritic doesn't indicate further reviews are available, I think I fall on the side of a (rather weak) delete.  All that said, I think even more good ref of medium length would turn me towards a keep.  - Ljleppan ( talk ) 16:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Delete : There is no evidence of references to pass WP:GNG .  CastJared ( talk ) 08:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Having been actually semi-retired since 2019, I am unfamiliar with the above editor's contribution history, but it's somewhat telling that, apart from the OP, CastJared is the only non-"weak" delete thus far, and CastJared has since been indefinitely blocked for CIR-violating commentary in AFDs , with the evidence presented in that discussion looking, at least to my eye, not dissimilar to the above comment that cites GNG but seems to be somewhat ignorant of the content of the said guideline.  Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや ) 04:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There is also this article by The Sun Daily and this one by DualShockers.  Daranios ( talk ) 10:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The first is unreliable, the second is situational, so I'd assume neither count towards notability  here.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 19:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep I have not investigated the notability of this video game (hence "weak" keep), but, like the better part of two-million other souls, I am subscribed to Super Eyepatch Wolf's YouTube channel.  There seems, per my comment here , to be a fair amount of misunderstanding of our sourcing policies and notability guidelines in this instance.  Unless it can be demonstrated that SEW was paid to promote this game, then he is, at least in theory, independent enough to be used in the establishment of notability.  This article is not a BLP, so there is no inherent prohibition on using self-published sources from public figures who are well-known and generally well-regarded, at least in relation to their own opinions.  The only real circumstance in which the self-published status of a source would (in and of itself) be enough to eliminate it as a source for GNG purposes would be where the person who wrote and published the source was directly connected to the subject itself.  Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや ) 04:35, 25 June 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete