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. The arguments that the cited sources are unreliable have not been rebutted. Sandstein 06:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Towertale[edit]

Towertale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Not sure this hits GNG. None of the sources cited are listed at WP:VGRS, which is never a good sign, and I didn't find anything better on a search. Metacritic has nothing.

Source analysis:

• Bonus Stage - in-depth but questionable reliability - looks like a blog, only one staff member listed
• SwitchWatch is a defunct blog, not RS
• GMA News - unclear reliability, frankly a lot of it looks like marketing copy/press release with no actual review content
• Gaming Boulevard looks okay reliability-wise, and I've started a discussion about it at WT:VG
• NintendoReporters is merely a database listing with copy from the dev's website, no independent content
• Nintendad is a defunct gaming blog, not RS
• Dev's own defunct site - not RS for notability purposes

I'm fine to withdraw if people feel the other review sites I've marked as questionable are actually RS. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I wasn't able to find a single reliable non-trivial coverage of this game. It's also quite a feat for a Nintendo Switch release to be ignored both by Nintendo Life and Nintendo World Report (who are very active reviews wise), but this one did it. Cited references seem to be all from unreliable/questionable at best sources, spot on analysis by the nominator. It's simply a clear fail of WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I found one piece of non trivial coverage for the game here but it's definitely not enough to put it over the edge in terms of notability._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Found nothing on this one. Neither on Newspapers.com or elsewhere. Timur9008 (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The sources from Bonus Stage, Gaming Boulevard, Touch Arcade and GMA News are reliable. The latter is a major local media outlet like ABS-CBN News and The Philippine Star. I also found some reliable sources which talk about the game: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6]. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 18:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• What would you say makes Bonus Stage reliable in the face of what I pointed out above? As for the sources you list - WeThePvblic is a low-impact two-person blog (not reliable) and of the gaming-focused other sites, DiceNDPads, Unpause.Asia, HappyGamer, Noypigeeks, GadgetPilipinas are all absent from VGRS and none have any of the hallmarks of reliability. Notpigeeks and GadgetPilipinas in particular are basically all marketing copy ("this game has X and Y features!"), not critical commentary. TouchArcade is reliable but it's a scant paragraph. If the best source available is a scant paragraph on TouchArcade, I'm satisfied that this fails GNG badly. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I concur with Premeditated Chaos, pretty much spot on everything (will add that GMA News while reliable isn't anything more than a trivial WP:ROUTINE "now out" release coverage). I'd recommend Astig to look at WP:VG/RS before calling random blogs as reliable. If we were the include all these sources mentioned, almost all games would be notable for Wikipedia. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:GNG with sources pointed out and presented by Astig. They're non-trivial and reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 04:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. None of the blogs linked by Astig above meet WP:VG/RS or project reliable source standards. No reputation for fact-checking or accuracy, no journalism experience, no educational pedigree. czar 20:02, 5 September 2021 (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.