261:'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.
358:. 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
209:. 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.
191:...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. —
339:
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? —
232:
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
133:) 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
131:
362:
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?
121:
281:
390:
323:
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
17:
335:
outlined by the PCC) certainly seem to provide more than enough of neutral perspective and editorial oversight to satisfy the
282:
http://www.nebusiness.co.uk/business-news/science-and-technology/2009/01/08/kamicrazy-a-hit-with-mobile-users-51140-22638674/
129:
309:) both review mobile games as do many reputable game sites. Unless the sites has a reputation they are simply unreliable. --
88:
83:
92:
436:
36:
332:
75:
435:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
53:
128:
The article claims notability but there are no sources for verification. I looked for some news coverage (
417:
166:
314:
238:
421:
402:
372:
349:
318:
298:
242:
219:
200:
147:
134:
57:
304:
345:
294:
196:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
413:
398:
266:
186:
363:
276:
210:
138:
206:
176:
79:
359:
355:
336:
271:
341:
290:
192:
158:
109:
328:
394:
286:
49:
324:
171:
71:
63:
181:
167:
http://www.destructoid.com/destructoid-review-kamicrazy-116888.phtml
429:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
412:- I'm happy with the coverage by the websites linked-to above.
331:, makes it a point of conforming to a professional journalist
307:
187:
http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/review.asp?c=11614&sec=7
267:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=kamicrazy%20review
277:
http://www.iphonegamenetwork.com/kamicrazy-quick-review
116:
105:
101:
97:
177:
http://www.iphoneappreviews.net/2009/01/29/kamicrazy/
354:I tend to be more strict on the interpretation of
272:http://wireless.ign.com/objects/143/14309128.html
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
439:). No further edits should be made to this page.
391:list of video game related deletion discussions
159:http://www.google.com/search?q=KamiCrazy+Review
287:http://issuu.com/intentmedia/docs/me47_pdf/27
8:
205:How are any of those reliable sources per
172:http://www.appversity.com/games/kamicrazy/
389:: This debate has been included in the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
327:and Nebusiness (which, according to
24:
182:http://www.appvee.com/t/kamicrazy
1:
456:
432:Please do not modify it.
422:11:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
403:18:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
373:19:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
350:22:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
319:21:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
299:16:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
243:12:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
220:03:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
201:02:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
148:01:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
58:15:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
44:The result was
405:
317:
241:
447:
434:
385:
369:
368:
333:Code of Practice
313:
312:
260:
259:
237:
236:
216:
215:
144:
143:
137:which it fails.
119:
113:
95:
34:
455:
454:
450:
449:
448:
446:
445:
444:
443:
437:deletion review
430:
366:
364:
310:
257:
255:
234:
213:
211:
141:
139:
115:
86:
70:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
453:
451:
442:
441:
425:
424:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
284:
279:
274:
269:
263:
262:
245:
226:
225:
224:
223:
189:
184:
179:
174:
169:
163:
162:
126:
125:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
452:
440:
438:
433:
427:
426:
423:
419:
415:
411:
408:
407:
406:
404:
400:
396:
392:
388:
375:
374:
370:
361:
357:
353:
352:
351:
347:
343:
338:
334:
330:
326:
322:
321:
320:
316:
308:
305:
302:
301:
300:
296:
292:
288:
285:
283:
280:
278:
275:
273:
270:
268:
265:
264:
253:
249:
246:
244:
240:
231:
228:
227:
222:
221:
217:
208:
204:
203:
202:
198:
194:
190:
188:
185:
183:
180:
178:
175:
173:
170:
168:
165:
164:
160:
156:
153:
152:
151:
150:
149:
145:
136:
132:
130:
123:
118:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
431:
428:
409:
386:
384:
371:
251:
247:
229:
218:
154:
146:
127:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
414:Marasmusine
325:Destructoid
306:) and IGN (
311:neon white
252:neon white
235:neon white
233:1up.com.--
135:WP:PRODUCT
72:Kamicrazy
64:Kamicrazy
122:View log
342:Rankiri
291:Rankiri
248:Comment
193:Rankiri
157:. From
89:protect
84:history
367:Yeller
258:Yeller
230:Delete
214:Yeller
142:Yeller
117:delete
93:delete
50:Stifle
303:1up (
207:WP:RS
120:) – (
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
418:talk
410:Keep
399:talk
387:Note
360:WP:R
356:WP:R
346:talk
337:WP:V
329:this
315:talk
295:talk
254:and
239:talk
197:talk
155:Keep
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
395:Ost
250:on
420:)
401:)
393:.
365:Ol
348:)
297:)
289:—
256:Ol
212:Ol
199:)
140:Ol
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:)
48:.
416:(
397:(
344:(
293:(
195:(
161::
124:)
114:(
112:)
74:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.