Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aveyond

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 keep. Canley (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aveyond (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)

Sources don't seem very reliable, some are promotional, under 100 google results. Andrevan@ 23:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Video games. Andrevan@ 23:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A quick look at the sources shows a RPGFan, GameZebo and Gameplay (DE) review, marking the first game, Aveyond: Rhen's Quest as notable. I have no qualms about the entire article being reorganized to be solely about that game, with everything else in a "Legacy" or "Sequels" section since the other games don't appear to be as notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. First of all, I made a silly, absurd mistake with the XfD closer. See my PS and apologies. Anyway, let's discuss about the article. Is the article poor? Yes, definitely. Is GNG meet? I think so. Gamezebo and RPG Fan have been refed four times. Per VGRS, they are RS per consensus: for Gamezebo, for RPG Fan. So there are four reviews (RS) from two companies. Of course, IMO 2+ reviews (possibly from 2+ sites) are enough to meet GNG. I looked at the archived versions of the sites and didn't find them to be much reliable, but as it's a very old version at the early stages of the Internet, and as there's consensus that they are reliable, that's enough for a weak keep vote from me. VickKiang (talk) 23:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment PS: I wanted to test out the functions of XfD closer (had a look at what close, quick close, relist does without doing them), but ended up misclicking due to the slow response of the laptop, so misclicked to keep it. I had rv the edit seconds after, but apologies for the meaningless two edits caused by this silly, absurd mistake, if it caused an edit conflict or concerns, apologies for this error, considering my inconvenience and non-admin closures only being recommended for clear and cut cases, I have turned the XfD closer off. Apologies for this mistake (it probably resulted in the article lacking an AfD discussion page fora while, and many thanks)! VickKiang (talk) 23:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article could be tightened up but the game is notable. --Lijil (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Per ZXCVBNM. It seems the notability relies mostly on the first game. Significant portions of this article needs deleted and reorganized with that in mind. If the question is, "Is the Aveyond SERIES notable?" I'd vote delete, but I'm willing to slide a weak keep on the basis that the first game at least has enough sourcing. -- ferret (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think it makes sense to keep the content from other games, too, as long as it's verifiable. /Julle (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Just 2 RS reviews, but that's the minimium. Structure on the series rather than one game makes sense, I don't see a need for a rewrite. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Personally, I'd say IMO that the first and second game could be kept, but the third and fourth need much trimming, as it's uncited or poorly cited OR (The game received mixed response, with the artwork being praised by almost everyone. It currently has an 8/10 rating on Steam. VickKiang (talk) 10:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]