Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People Playground

People Playground (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)

No significant coverage in reliable sources. For the sources cited in the article, the only non-database one is https://leedsjournal.co.uk/people-playground/, which is clearly from a content farm with no visible editorial policy that seems to be maliciously imitating real news sites for clicks. While https://kotaku.com/people-playground-steam-mod-workshop-virus-2000665028 looks okay, WP:VG/S states that "[Kotaku articles from] 2023 onward should generally be avoided due to content farming concerns and unmarked AI-written content", and one piece of questionable coverage isn't enough to confer notability. Mosplot (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Mosplot (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've checked for sources on this game in the past. Fails notability entirely. λ NegativeMP1 17:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: lacking adequate sources to scale notability requirements. Santa Saana (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. My own web-search has found a reliable source: see here, but one source alone isn't enough to establish notability, especially when the source is about a mod for the game and not the game itself. _♥^✿ TheMDC4 chat :3 ^✿_♥ 19:37, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I have to correct you there. Your article was not about a mod for the game, it was about malware that was affecting the whole game. Schlooshy (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No reviews present in reliable sources, unfortunately. Metacritic doesn't even list a single source for non-user reviews. ScalarFactor (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The topic the above GameSpot article covers has also been covered by GameBusiness, GameSpark, 4Gamer.net, and 3DJuegos. EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some more sources. Currently, the article has numerous secondary sources from news articles. I do not think this article should be deleted as all of the sources are valid. A simple web search can bring up lots of articles about this game as well. Schlooshy (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding sources! However, I still have concerns. The articles you and TheMDC4 linked are all brief warnings about the same malicious mod incident, so I don't think there's enough coverage of gameplay or critical reception to write a proper article. Also, the GameBusiness article appears to be a reprint of the GameSpark article, so it won't count for notability. Mosplot (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that articles about one security incident related to the game are sufficient for notability for the game itself. ScalarFactor (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- not finding enough SIGCOV sources to suggest notability, ones I've checked so far seems to be basic product descriptions or brief reviews.Lorraine Crane (talk) 02:54, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per others, lacks significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:52, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]