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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Creativerse[edit]

Creativerse (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)

Notability-tagged for almost two years. The Bleeding Cool review is substantial and a RS. The VentureBeat articles (1 , 2) are good.

The Softonic review is three paragraphs total, more of a description than a review, and not attributed to a specific author. QuietCicada (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. QuietCicada (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• ...So, weak keep? Not gonna lie, this isn't exactly a compelling case as to why this article should be deleted. PantheonRadiance (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete It's a vague if sort of fair nomination given that the article only currently has one reliable review and is otherwise mostly citations from primary sources. The VentureBeat sources are helpful as a developer interview and providing release context, but they only very briefly assess the game itself. Given the Softonic review is not exactly reliable, it really would help if there are one or two more sources out there that independently evaluate the game. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I actually would be more critical about the sources than the nom themselves is. The deletion argument is weak, but it does not appear that there is sufficient WP:SIGCOV here that isn't in clearly promotional language. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 1 review and 2 promotional interviews is not enough to satisfy WP:GNG criteria. --Mika1h (talk) 15:28, 12 October 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.