Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mango Plumo (2nd nomination)

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mango Plumo

(Find video game sources: "Mango Plumo" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Contested PROD with a claim for new sources. Non-notable video games/series. I cannot locate multiple reliable independent in-depth sources for WP:GNG, such as WP:VG/RS. Does not appear that the coverage has changed since last AfD. No meaningful hits in custom RS search. The only new source that is probably RS is Discovery Education, but it's only a single one. All the other sources in the article are unreliable or not in-depth. Lots of search hits otherwise, but none appear in-depth, mostly directory entries and generic descriptions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about museum of play and the national parenting center? Aren't these just as reliable as disovery education? - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt they are, but, even if they are, the content is not in-depth. That's one of the three requirements -- for there to be significant content on the topic. NPC is barely a paragraph with only a generic description. MoP is brief generic description and mostly not about the game(s). DE at least has significant content and critical reception in the form of a review, although doesn't state who the author is nor can I find any editorial information, though [1] probably implies they have decent standards. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my argument last time. Article does not appear to be notable, and the new sources discovered aren't convincing enough. AdrianGamer (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as it doesn't look like anybody cares enough about these games to write sources about them. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What about the fact that NPC gave the game its seal of approval? Doesn't that make the game notable? - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it means much at all when the accompanying review is hardly a paragraph of PR information. They have not listed a single critical thing about the game. Perhaps they did have something more comprehensive internally, but we cannot verify this without any published material. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)\[reply]
  - Plus even if a single source is about the game, it doesn't make the game itself notable. There are a lot of hidden gems out there, though I don't think this is one. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Hellknowz is right, there aren't multiple, reliable sources to be found. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:43, 23 February 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.