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 no consensus. This is a pretty messy discussion, with the majority of opinion being very tentative preferences in one direction or the other. Given the split is almost down the middle, the fact there is a legitimate difference of opinion about whether SIGCOV is met, and the fact this has been relisted a wild 4 times just to get to this point, I think this is the most appropriate close. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pax Nova (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)

I used the PROD process and it was reverted, so I am taking this to AFD as the next logical step. My comment was: No reliable independent sources to provide WP:SIGCOV. WP:BEFORE shows that this does not even have reviews on Metacritic, which would be the minimum. Jontesta (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Jontesta - Having a review on Metacritic is neither here nor there, especially as they tend not to include non-English content to the same extent as English-language. I see a lot of coverage in the article but it seems to mostly be previews in sources I have no knowledge of - in might be a good idea to say if these are reliable sources or not. Rock, Paper, Shotgun had a preview, and is considered a reliable source, but reading it it appears to be based on screenshots and the preview video, so possibly this is just PR anyway? This Italian site appears to be a pass for WP:NEWSORG based on its editorial staff and had a full review, so that's at least one instance of SIGCOV for the actual game. This French site had a full review and at least has an ISSN number. This is another French site that had a substantial review and appears to have an editorial team (and thus is a pass for WP:NEWSORG). I'm leaning keep here but would like to hear your thoughts. FOARP (talk) 09:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am unconvinced by the sources presented, and whether they are WP:SIGCOV or reliable. I believe it fails GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on the secondary sources found. It seems we have two full reviews. (For the third, is the wargamer.fr link correct?) Daranios (talk) 11:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on the reviews, which appear to be from organisations that are WP:NEWSORG passes. FOARP (talk) 10:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I do not know if this can pass GNG source. But it surely is something.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 07:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @HelpingWorld: That is not listed as a reliable source, so you'll have to provide evidence it is editorially curated. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a routine announcement based on a teaser trailer, being dependent on quotes, and then proceeds to a gameplay-only summary. I don't think it's WP:SIGCOV, whether it's a WP:RS is also debatable. VickKiang (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete the article at present offers 5 sources. Of those, only two (IGN and Destructoid) are reliable, and only the Destructoid one has any sort of actual content (versus a repost of a promo trailer.) Of the sources offered in this AfD, the Rock Paper Shotgun is definitely solid. But that still leaves us with a paucity of sources. I don't think either the WarGamer.fr or IlVideologico sources count for demonstrating notability (Videologico came up just recently on the WP:VG Reliable sources list, and I laid out why I don't think it can count as an RS there.) I don't think SIGCOV in enough publications has been met to pass the GNG. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per David Fuchs and his parsing of the sources. A game article doesn't always need reviews to fit the WP:GNG, but the other sources are unfortunately thin. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting a rare 4th time (sorry for this). My close of Delete was challenged at the beginning of January and I agreed to relist it without realizing that the discussion was already relisted three times. But I offered so I'm relisting this to let a different administrator come to their own, independent decision on this discussion so that's what I'm doing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I found a review at TechRaptor, which is situationally reliable and a short preview at GamePressure which seems to be a WP:RS. I'm not especially confident of the reliability of other sources FOARP found, but the Rock Paper Shotgun reference has some critical commentary and might be SIGCOV. Nevertheless, overall notability is probably quite borderline. VickKiang (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Just passes WP:GNG slightly. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I think this discussion should probably be closed as no consensus instead of delete, and added a few refs to the article. That said I am at neutral to weak delete. I've added a source assessment below for my two cents. The partially sites IMO can go either way and I can see both the keep and delete arguments. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://techraptor.net/gaming/reviews/pax-nova-review		~ Per WP:VG/RS TechRaptor is of inconclusive reliability.	Full length review	~ Partial
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/pax-nova-hybrid-4x-hex-strategy-debut		Listed as WP:RS	~ It seems to be a preview with some information based on screenshots, which indicate routine coverage. However, there is some analysis and comparisons with other games, so this is IMO debatably WP:SIGCOV	~ Partial
https://www.destructoid.com/pax-nova-looks-like-a-beautiful-combination-of-stellaris-and-alpha-centauri/		Per WP:VG/RS, "Like other blog sites, some content may be reliable, but only if the author can be established as such". The author also edits in another non-RS site with no staff page or policies, so I see insufficient evidence for subject-matter-expertise	~ Mainly gameplay recount (which is routine), but the author has some informal analysis	✘ No
https://www.ilvideogioco.com/2020/04/28/pax-nova-la-nostra-recensione/		~ Participants in the recent VG/RS discussion had no clear consensus on reliability. Has a basic staff page with unclear indication of subject-matter-expertise, there is also no editorial policies. I would normally consider this as unreliable but given that another participant in the VGRS discussion found some WP:USEBYOTHERS there might be more in Italian, so I'm not writing this off as clearly unreliable but it's IMO a situational source.	Full length review.	~ Partial
https://www.wargamer.fr/beyond-the-rift-prochain-dlc-pour-pax-nova/	This is not a full review but instead an announcement, primarily quotes from Pax Nova 1.3.2 Released And Beyond The Rift DLC Announced!, including non-independent lines such as "We’ve been working on this for quite some time and we’re really excited to finally announce it in more detail and give you a quick rundown of what you can expect."	I could not find staff nor editorial policies (correct me if I'm wrong) in the translated version.	This appears to be a routine announcement instead of a full-length review, though the URL might have been incorrect. Ping me if a full review can be identified.	✘ No
https://game-guide.fr/275917-pax-nova-le-chemin-vers-la-victoire/		Has a basic staff page with no clear subject-matter-expertise. The website's copyright reads the following, © 2011-2021 - Association Clamidra - Wordpress. Wordpress blogs are generally unreliable unless clear editorial process or SME can be demonstrated, which is likely not the case.	Detailed preview.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

• Delete. I'd remind participants that multiple sources need to meet every criterion of SIGCOV; and at the moment, the most reliable source does not provide content that I consider substantive (rockpapershotgun, unless I'm missing something, didn't even have access to the game) and the others I would question the reliability of. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:18, 21 January 2023 (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.