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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kamicrazy[edit]

The article claims notability but there are no sources for verification. I looked for some news coverage ([1][2]) but can't find any articles to back up the claims made in the article. The only inclusion guideline I can think of that would pertain to this article (besides the general notability guideline) is WP:PRODUCT which it fails. OlYeller^Talktome 01:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From http://www.google.com/search?q=KamiCrazy+Review :

http://www.destructoid.com/destructoid-review-kamicrazy-116888.phtml

http://www.appversity.com/games/kamicrazy/

http://www.iphoneappreviews.net/2009/01/29/kamicrazy/

http://www.appvee.com/t/kamicrazy

http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/review.asp?c=11614&sec=7

...And at least a dozen of similar search results that are quite sufficient to satisfy the verifiability and notability guidelines. The article is already tagged with ((Unreferenced)) and I'm also tagging it with ((videogame-stub)). Feel free to remove any unverifiable claims you encounter but I just don't see any reason in deleting the entire page. — Rankiri (talk) 02:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How are any of those reliable sources per WP:RS. I guess the problem I see with using websites whose purpose is to review iPhone apps to establish notability is that they'll review anything. I just can't agree that, because there's a review out there (however many), that the subject is notable. This would also mean that any iPhone app ever approved by Apple is notable as they'll all be reviewed, no matter how good or bad they are. I think the line has to be drawn somewhere and my opinion is that a iPhone app review website can't be used to establish notability. Just my opinion though. OlYeller^Talktome 03:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to a more general article. OlYeller21 is correct, you cannot use directories of games as source for notability, not one has any particular reputation. It would need reviews on reputable sites such as IGN or 1up.com.--neon white talk 12:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on neon white and OlYeller's observations. Judging from my experience, "reputable" (read, "long-standing") websites such as IGN or 1up.com generally don't pay much attention to such relatively minor platforms in mobile gaming. Additionally, none of the provided links lead to mere "directories of games" like the Apple Store. None of the sources seem to be affiliated with the game or its authors and and most of them seem to provide in-depth, nontrivial coverage—including quite incontrovertible video reviews—that come pretty much to the same key conclusions about the title in question. Again, considering the plethora of independent sources available, I still have to disagree with the validity of this AfD nomination.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=kamicrazy%20review

http://wireless.ign.com/objects/143/14309128.html

http://www.iphonegamenetwork.com/kamicrazy-quick-review

http://www.nebusiness.co.uk/business-news/science-and-technology/2009/01/08/kamicrazy-a-hit-with-mobile-users-51140-22638674/

http://issuu.com/intentmedia/docs/me47_pdf/27 — Rankiri (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1up ([3]) and IGN ([4]) both review mobile games as do many reputable game sites. Unless the sites has a reputation they are simply unreliable. --neon white talk 21:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the game is not reviewed by the websites of your choosing has no bearing on the quality of the discussed sources. Sites like Destructoid and Nebusiness (which, according to this, makes it a point of conforming to a professional journalist Code of Practice outlined by the PCC) certainly seem to provide more than enough of neutral perspective and editorial oversight to satisfy the WP:V guidelines. Considering that a general consensus among the reviewers is reached and no exceptional claims are being made, I can't see any problems with the issue of verification whatsoever. Do you have any specific objections to each of the sources? — Rankiri (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to be more strict on the interpretation of WP:R. I consider reliable sources to be notable in their own right (for instance IGN, CNN, BBC, etc. are notable by Wiki standards). Notability generally means that the source itself has been reviewed by peers. Regardless, I find that sources like IGN will review just about any kind of video game that comes out. My interpretation tells me that the sources in the article aren't reliable for notability and my gut tells me that not ever game reviewed by the largest of video game websites are notable. Either way, I think this is coming down to our interpretation of WP:R and I also think that it's fairly obvious that no one in this discussion (so far) will change their mind about what a reliable source is based on this discussion. Agree to disagree I guess? OlYeller^Talktome 19:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Ost (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm happy with the coverage by the websites linked-to above. Marasmusine (talk) 11:51, 1 June 2009 (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.