Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hero Wars (video game)

Hero Wars (video game)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Hero Wars (video game) (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)

None of the sources appear to be reliable, best I could find is this from GameStar. Suggesting redirect to Nexters. IgelRM (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IgelRM (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - There's VentureBeat interview and Aftermath article. PCGamesN has a short list entry. --Mika1h (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Also here's a short thing Kotaku did. --Mika1h (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

• Löschen I don't think the sources amount to SIGCOV. There aren't really enough real reviews of the game. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  Somewhat off-topic, but mobile games don't commonly receive traditional reviews and "real" is rather subjective. IgelRM (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  Mobile games certainly do get traditional reviews, and pretty often too - at least from what I've seen. There isn't a particular reason to judge this game differently than the rest. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment It seems like much of the coverage linked above is not about the actual game, but rather its marketing campaign, and the broader trend of "fake" mobile game trailers. You could maybe do an article on fake trailers and talk about hero wars there. But as a standalone the notability feels pretty weak. CurlyWi (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
• Delete I think the lack of reception is the achilles' heel for the article. Directly paraphrasing the only sources available, the only evaluation in the sources are that Kotaku says the plot is "unremarkable", the art is "shady" and the gameplay loop is "incoherent", and PCGamesN describes the game as one of the "best" computer games for mobile and implies that it's addictive. The VentureBeat article is great but is heavily a primary interview source. There's also the Aftermath article and the point about the promotion, but for that to single-handedly be able to make the game notable, there would need to be more coverage than one inconclusive WP:VG/S source. On the point above about reviews, yes I agree 'real' isn't a fair threshold for assessing sources but I don't think there is enough coverage that should support a section of how the game was independently reviewed and evaluated at this point. On mobile games having a unique hurdle for notability, I get it: I used to write a lot of indie game articles and it's frustrating to hit these roadblocks for things that seem self-evidently notable when the reviews and coverage just isn't there. Keeping an open mind if there's more sourcing out there. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Delete The game does not seem to meet neither WP:GNG, nor WP:VG/S as the only notable source I see is VentureBeat. Other than that, the article seems to have a list in the Gameplay section, which is a little concerning, as it is sourced to an unknown source aswell. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

There are few sources, but they exist. And it seems that it needs to be keep. But, if we decide to delete, let's transfer the information to Nexters. This is one of the company's most significant games. Wikipedia should have at least a section about it. ЖуковАФ (talk) 12:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)