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. Kurykh (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ass Hunter[edit]

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

Lack of notability. TheDracologist (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Besides the reliable sources already in the article, there's also Slate, PCMag, CNN. IBTimes (Questionable reliably if I recall though), Daily Dot (Questionable reliably), NY Daily News... There's a lot of sourcing available from secondary reliable sources, however, it feels a little bit like a WP:ONEEVENT situation (Which normally only applies to people). The coverage is entirely about the game's removal, and appears to be covered only by typical daily news. Other than PCMag, there appears to be no coverage from any typical VG reliable sources and no direct coverage of the game itself separate from it's removal. -- ferret (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is one of a series of ill-considered AfDs by new editor User:TheDracologist.@Shawn in Montreal and Ferret:.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - When an article already has several good sources listed, "lack of notability" with no further explanation is not a very good rationale. I would ask TheDracologist to explain her thoughts a bit more fully. LadyofShalott 16:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a single event that had little to no long-term impact. TheDracologist (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Plenty of sourcing. While its mostly known for one event, WP:ONEEVENT applies to people. I'm not sure it can be used for a video game. I'd say "very weak" keep, but I wouldn't want to see this deleted as a default due to low participation. If someone has another policy that applies, please ping me. -- ferret (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ferret: Criteria of WP:NEVENT? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. The subject of sources (removal from store) is not the subject of the article (video game). The removal event itself is a one-time news event, which doesn't pass any event notability criteria, such as WP:LASTING or WP:COVERAGE. The actual video game fails WP:GNG with no in-depth sources, such as reviews from WP:VG/RS. The sources are mainly about one aspect of the video game's timeline, which is not in-depth enough to provide substantial content for gameplay, development, or general critical reception to adhere to WP:WAF. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per HELLKNOWZ, who was able to state what I was trying to get to in my first comment. -- ferret (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would delete ASAP: Sounds controversial to me, and violates my right as a LGBT supporter. Xy ae na 04:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh the game sounds horrible. That is not a deletion criterion, however. LadyofShalott 05:08, 24 March 2017 (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.