Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warped Kart Racers

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warped Kart Racers

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

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

Video game that fails WP:GNG, relies to heavily on primary sources. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 22:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 22:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not asserted. Doing another web search, there seems to be a bit of coverage - however, the article still needs quite a bit of work. Weak keep. Silikonz💬 22:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Got reviews or previews from Kotaku, Kotaku Australia, and Multiplayer.it. While there are many "press release" seeming sources, I think it squeaks by notability criteria. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Motorsport. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 03:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 03:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's more coverage of the game in Autoevolution [1], Gamereactor [2], TgCom24 [3], Marin Independent Journal [4]. Pocket Tactics has been inconclusive discussion wise in the past but [5] also exists. Passes WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Personally, I want this deleted, but I don't know much about video games so I won't cast a formal !vote. However, I would like to note that I strongly suspect the article creator is connected with 20th Century Fox or with Electric Square given their behaviour in the article, and if it is kept then it needs attention to ensure it is covered in an impartial manner. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. Per @Zxcvbnm, I hate to say it but it got some coverage and playerbase. Found some German reviews as well [6]. If this article doesn't get expanded in a year, re-list. // MitYehor (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just pointing out that once notability is established, it is permanent. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 17:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The policy in question is WP:NEXIST. Things cannot be listed for AfD due to size or absence of sources in the article, if sources exist elsewhere. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Both Kotaku reviews seem like unambiguous WP:SIGCOV to me, and several other reviews have been linked above. I don't see any POV issues in the article as it currently stands. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While the current state of the article obviously isn't great, the article's subject meets the third inclusion point of WP:NSOFT per the reviews provided by Zxcvbnm and Jovanmilic97. - Aoidh (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sourcing presented so far is enough to meet the GNG. Additionally, while the article creator has made some strange choices, the current makeup of the article is not overtly promotional. Sergecross73 msg me 02:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW keep - Notability has been established per above with multiple independent sources which can be used to expand the article beyond its current state. COI issues can be raised directly to the respective editor. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 05:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:31, 4 March 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.