Talk:Arboria

'Sources exist'

Hi, Zxcvbnm. As the subject is "clearly notable" (I can't emphasize the use of scare quotes hard enough there) and as you have added a tag stating "sources exist", please enumerate the ones you've found. I'd love to hear about them so I can see where I went wrong in finding them and, more importantly, use them to furnish this article instead of D-list padding like 'ChristCenteredGamer.com'. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 11:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Please stop with the snippy and sarcastic language, especially if you did not do the most basic tenets of WP:BEFORE, such as looking up a game's Metacritic page. On that alone, it lists both CD-Action and The Games Machine, both well known reliable publications. While the others are considered unreliable, that should have been a strong hint that sources existed. And, finally, this preview of the game, while not a full review, easily puts it over the edge of passing WP:GNG. Beyond that, there is PC Gamer, which is kinda weak but only further shows the GNG passing nature of the game. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Like, I think PROD process is important to draw attention to articles in danger of being deleted. But at the same time, dePRODs can be legitimate. Don't assume anytime someone removes a PROD they are a troll. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I did look at the Metacritic page. The Games Machine source I would accept as contributing to notability if only because it's under Future plc and has some length to it (when sources are this sparse, I find that over a page in 12-point font is a good watermark but not some kind of end-all cutoff), and I did also consider that CD-Action actually put its review of this game in its physical print magazine. Everything else I could find, though, is lacking. Nowadays unless it's genuinely substantial coverage I don't consider PC Gamer's website as contributing to notability (in the case of this one, which, as you noted, is kind of weak, it's just "hey, I watched this trailer and churned out fewer than 300 words of surface-level analysis on it"), because their online pieces often amount to little more than "Hey, check out this cool gaming video I stumbled across on YouTube". Generally speaking I don't take RPG Gamer very seriously as a source for establishing notability. It has editors per its staff listing, so it clears that hurdle from WP:QUESTIONABLE, but it's a volunteer operation that's always struck me as really amateur – not the least of which, as a relevant example, because their editor-in-chief (who wrote the article you linked) ostensibly puts out several articles a day (on top of or in lieu of the numerous, extremely time-consuming jobs that come with that role?). I did the most basic tenets of WP:BEFORE; I just happen to recognize that Wikipedia gets spammed to hell and back with articles about non-notable games that stick around like barnacles simply because they get low-quantity coverage in low-quality sources due to the complete oversaturation of the gaming journalism market. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Although I had seen these sources beforehand, there was no reason whatsoever for me to be so insufferably snarky. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

"Generally speaking I don't take RPG Gamer very seriously as a source for establishing notability."

RPGamer has been noted as a reliable source, at WP:VG/S with full consensus of numerous editors (there have been 8 discussions about it so far). Either way I'm not sure why finding a lengthy, but in your opinion borderline source would mean its notability was uncontroversially completely lacking. At the very least it would merit a full discussion at AfD.

"I just happen to recognize that Wikipedia gets spammed to hell and back with articles about non-notable games"

Well, trying to throw out every game that surface level seems unnotable runs the risk of WP:BATHWATER. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)