Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Souls

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.

Dark Souls

The result was Keep. (Non-admin closure of my own bad faith nomination) ArcAngel (talk) ) 15:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contested PROD. Game is noted as a "spiritual" sequel, yet it is in development, so it fails WP:GNG at this time. Also see WP:FUTURE. ArcAngel (talk) ) 20:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a major title from a major developer which has already received plenty of coverage. Development status has nothing to do with the general notability guideline, and crystalballery is an aside since it wouldn't matter if development stopped halfway through, there'd still be coverage. I don't understand why this has been nominated for deletion. Someone another 02:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Someoneanother, why is this being nominated for deletion? I don't see how it fails WP:GNG at all. 1) "Significant Coverage" is satisfied because the game is the main topic of each source provided, there is no need for original research to extract the content, nor is it a trivial mention. 2) "Reliable" is covered because I know that at least the first three sources are well known legitimate gaming news sites, I've seen them used in other gaming articles and I don't think it can get much more reliable than that. 3) Each of the sources are secondary sources, and we have multiple secondary sources for this article. 4) "Independent of the subject" does not apply here since none of the sources provided are directly affiliated with the subject or I think in this case the game's publisher. Demon's Souls was a very well known video game, from a very well known developer and publisher, I think we can presume that as more information on this game is released, more sources will become available as more gaming news sites post articles on the game and it's development, which I think fulfills the last bullet on the notability guidelines. 71.112.84.244 (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) –MuZemike 06:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major news revealed today (day of the nom) in a major Japanese gaming magazine, repropigated by Western news sources. Previous news of the game (by its old name, Project Dark was also covered. While I don't think there was a rush to create this article, there's certainly no need to delete it. --MASEM (t) 06:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the IP's great respose. Skullbird11 (talk) 11:36, 2 February 2011 (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.