Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prehistoric kingdom (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) 00:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prehistoric kingdom

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

nominator's rationale Fails WP:GNG. The game was a upcoming game, but the page was only support by two primary source which is the digital store page (that have a low entrance fee for listing) and another source is kickstarter. Matthew_hk t c 12:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also read the first nomination. The first PC Gamer article was only a paraphrase of the kickstarter campaign, not a non-routine (i.e. no in-depth coverage), the second article was certainly routine coverage. For other source that was listed in the first nomination, the original Gamepro (US) was listed as Wikipedia:VG/RS, but not sure about German edition. Haven't read the French Jeuxvideo.com article mentioned in the first nomination to comment the article was a non-routine non-press release RS or not. Matthew_hk t c 13:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Matthew_hk t c 12:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And there is a draft that located in Draft:Prehistoric Kingdom. Matthew_hk t c 15:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ping @Ansh666: who declined PROD and speedy G4 with the following reason "a half-sentence stub was deleted via AfD before. please use AfD again". Matthew_hk t c 12:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He is, unfortunately, correct to decline both. --Izno (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That said, if the creator continues to recreate the material, it should either be SALTed or its creator blocked (or at least strongly warned) for disruptiveness. --Izno (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly there was a PR team, or some die-hard fans of an upcoming game. The draft was created by SPA @Calicojackosaur69:, while the article was created twice by @Bubblesorg:, which had a history of defying afd (see Australian Spinosaurid and User talk:Bubblesorg#Australian Spinosaurid). Matthew_hk t c 15:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was just deleted. Why are we going through this again? Natureium (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a relevant improvement over the previous incumbent; flimsy content, bad sourcing, crystalballing. Editor does not seem to be able to grasp what makes an article worth creating or keeping (Tursiops osennae,Idiorophus,...) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would endorse WP:SALT the article titles Prehistoric kingdom and Prehistoric Kingdom if we had a consensus to delete. The creator had messaged me for deletion (Special:Diff/839149607) as well as his message in the talk page of the article (Special:Diff/839149389), indicated that he may had problem of ownership of article. Matthew_hk t c 17:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Should have been CSD. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Septrillion (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above delete comments. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:46, 8 May 2018 (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.