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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Coins[edit]

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

Non-notable game met with "o.k" response in 2014 and shut down in 2015. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination, I cannot find any indication of Notability.--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article is notable, I have referenced several pages with clear proof of this game. LinkDirectory5000 (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~ Neutral. Mere existence doesn't equate to notability. If it doesn't have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it doesn't merit a Wikipedia article. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please see below. I've already found at least 5 third party reliable sources that help it meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 03:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The additional sources aren't great (they include a tweet, a forum posting, and other trivial mentions) but the article now isn't in the state it was in when first nominating, so I'm withdrawing my delete recommendation. My objection to considering the project page WP:VG/S as an "official" guideline that appears to have reached that distinction by fiat rather than discussion in the broader Wikipedia community, is a topic for a different discussion. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the Twitter/Sega Forum sources were there prior to me rewriting the article, and I only kept them because they were the only ones I could find verifying the game's removal from the App Store. I don't like using them either, but first party sourcing is usable to a limited degree, and its only there to source that non-controversial claim. It wasn't one of the sources added with the intention to prove notability. Sergecross73 msg me 19:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found a number of sources with a consensus for being reliable per WP:VG/S, that dedicated entire articles to the subject. Gronk Oz, Anachronist - do the below sources change your mind on this?

Additionally, I found https://www.techinasia.com/dragon-coins-sea-review-bringing-meaning-to-the-coin-dozer - which isn't listed at WP:VG/S but looks reliable and discussed the game in detail. Sergecross73 msg me 18:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with these sources is that they look like routine coverage of Sega's products. Routine coverage doesn't confer notability. An analogy would be a wine reviewed in Wine Spectator, a reliable source, but it reviews 10,000 wines per year, so any obscure non-notable wine has a 99.9% chance of getting reviewed at some point. With the exception of Engadget, those sources above exist almost completely for the purpose of reviewing games (and the author of the Engadget piece isn't even listed on their staff, he's no more reliable a source than you or me). The point is, every game from a publisher like Sega will get at least a couple of reviews from a reliable source eventually, regardless of actual notability; in essence the game is being reviewed because Sega put it out, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. I'm not convinced that this coverage is more than routine. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So ... @Sergecross73: are there any better sources, which are not just standard reviews when the game was released? --Gronk Oz (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Polygon also wrote an article about the game, which is another RS from WP:VG/S. Sergecross73 msg me 20:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dedicated product reviews are not routine coverage - they discuss the subject in significant detail, as the GNG requires. There's a consensus at the WikiProject level that they are reliable and go towards proving notability. There is no requirement that says video games need to break into the mainstream media in order for the sources to count towards meeting the GNG. No one suggested anything remotely close to INHERITED, so I have no idea why you chose to go on that tangent. The argument is that third party reliable sources wrote detailed articles dedicated entire to the subject. Sergecross73 msg me 13:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My analogy with Wine Spectator was to demonstrate that dedicated product reviews are indeed routine coverage when those reviews appear in publications that exist solely for the purpose of reviewing those products. That's what we have here. Routine coverage. Are there any non-notable Sega games? My point about WP:NOTINHERITED was to suggest that just because a reviewer thinks a game is worth reviewing just because Sega released it, doesn't mean we have to. We need to be making a meaningful distinction between routine coverage and something actually notable. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are non-notable Sega games. Look at lists like List of Sega mobile games or List of Sega arcade games and see that there's plenty of unlinked titles. Only half of the sources provided above were reviews, and all of them presented write more than just product reviews. I have saved a ton of articles at AFD using equal or even less sourcing for products like video games or albums, so I would be absolutely shocked if this sort of sourcing would be shrugged off simply as "routine" and the article deleted. Sergecross73 msg me 19:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, from what I can gather, while it was a short-lived failure in English regions, it was considered a success in Japan, where it had launched several years earlier. [1], [2] Sergecross73 msg me 03:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant Wikiproject has some pertinent discussion of this issue at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Review sites: "The most important sources for most video game articles are the reviews of the game itself." This is different to articles on more conventional topics. Can we get some involvement from the folks at that WikiProject, who would be more familiar with their standards?--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is the stance of the WikiProject (I've been active there for the last 6-7 years). In the video game industry, the most detailed commentary from third parties is often from the reviews, as they often consist of detailed breakdowns of the game's make up - which is why I so strongly reject Anachonistic's notion of the coverage being "routine". I am surprised WP:VG hasn't commented more here - its one of the most active WikiProjects on the website - but hopefully we'll get more input soon. Sergecross73 msg me 14:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did a page in a Wikiproject become an official guideline? Here is the edit that made it so — without any formal discussion in the wider Wikipedia community, as far as I can determine. Nevertheless, if the coverage of this game isn't considered routine, that's fine. I would maintain that any source that exists solely for the purpose of publishing reviews constitutes routine coverage. I want to see more sources from outside that niche. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Yep, I think these references are just enough to show notability. Many of them appear to paraphrase the press release, but not entirely and some, especially pocketgamer, are original. --Gronk Oz (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have done a complete rewrite - standardizing the structure, adding over 10 refs, and expanding it out of stub status. Please look it over prior to commenting. It's by no means perfect, but is far different than when it was first nominated, and certainly clears the bar for the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 14:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Following Sergecross73's rewrite and source additions. Seems to clearly pass GNG. -- ferret (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks User:Sergecross73! LinkDirectory5000 (talk) 17:42, 26 November 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.