Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quiver (video game)

Quiver (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG.

I was able to find the following reviews from Hardcore Gaming 101 (English), PC Player (German), PC Player (German; again), PC Gamer (Polish), PC Gamer (Polish; again), OK PC Gamer (Spanish), and Giochi Per Il Mio Computer (Italian). That might sound like quite a bit of reviews, but the only reviews that spend more than a paragraph reviewing Quiver are the Hardcore Gaming 101 and the PC Player reviews, and the content of those reviews would make for a barebones article.

I can't find anything else, especially since the game's entries on Metacritic, IGN, and Absolute Games are empty. As such, this game does not have the significant coverage from multiple sources required to be notable. Lazman321 (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lazman321 (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's some evidence of a moderate level of WP:OFFLINE content: the developer's website claims positive coverage from WP:VG/S sources including GamesDomain and PC Gamer and at least acknowledgement from GameSpot and another few sources. MobyGames suggests some more non-RS reviews were out there in the form of the Adrenaline Vault. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that content is produced and happens to be reasonably significant coverage, then that could be evidence of notability. In regards to quotes in that webpage, I was able to verify the Games Domain review here. Reasonably in-depth and could potentially contribute to the game's notability, though I'm not sure if its sufficient. The rest I couldn't verify: PC Gamer UK doesn't list Quiver in its index of games; I could not verify the existence of a ZDNet review, especially given they are mostly tech-focused; Gamespot's entry is empty; and I have no idea what GamerWorld, Game Developer Radio Show, or Game Excape are. Lazman321 (talk) 00:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I would say the fairly in-depth GD review leans the game to a weak keep given there are now three reliable, independent reviews that cover the subject in depth, narrowly enough to factually describe most of the aspects of the game and how it was received. That's all it needs for notability. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk)

• Keep Based on the 2 reviews at GamesDomain. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. I've also found The Tampa Tribune review. Timur9008 (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Timur9008: Could you give a link to it? Lazman321 (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wait, never mind, you already added it to the page Lazman321 (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as nominator I have expanded the article by incorporating the sources that have been found as best as I could. Is this substantial enough to keep? I'm still not sure. Lazman321 (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Reviews from Hardcore Gaming 101, Games Domain and PC Player are SIGCOV and are enough to meet GNG. --Mika1h (talk) 10:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]