Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cocoron (2nd nomination)

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 delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cocoron

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

Same deletion rationale as 2009. The article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search and no hits in a search of the Internet Archive's gaming magazine collection. The refs currently in the article are not reliable (see WP:VG/RS). The author's response was that "All officially released games get wiki pages and don't need to pass notability standards" but couldn't find where that was backed by policy or consensus (it isn't). There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. – czar 16:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - Unfortunately there's nothing to suggest independent notability or even minimal improvement with my searches finding some of the same results or nothing at all apart from this (at News). SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. All I found were blog reviews. shoy (reactions) 14:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and above editors. Nothing to show independent notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:49, 26 August 2015 (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.