Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oblitus mortis

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. I see a rough consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 13:07, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Oblitus mortis

[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!

Oblitus mortis (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)

Unfortunately fails WP:GNG. The only source cited is a El Diario listicle; the La Prensa source merely reports on that article without adding anything of value. I am unable to find anything other than a DualShockers listicle entry () which adds some description but is not very in depth nor considered reliable at WP:VG/S. This may be a WP:NONENG situation but I don't see any reviews or in-depth coverage. VRXCES (talk) 04:44, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related AfD discussions. VRXCES (talk) 04:44, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: Other sources include the following:. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:30, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• These are helpful finds to the article but not strongly relevant to the concerns of the nomination. Fuera de Aqui is routine announcement coverage that simply attaches the trailer and provides a basic promotional description of the game (note future tense language spruiking player expectations like you will, you can, and so on - this isn't a source that has played the game, just reciting a press release). Mundo UR seems to be a podcast on Venezuelan radio directly interviewing the creator; it is useful and in-depth, but it also is an intimately non-independent interview source - the entire interview is put directly to the creator to talk about their own game. It still stands there isn't a review or in-depth coverage independent of the creator. VRXCES (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• Weak Keep NoonIcarus is a deletion editor after my own heart. I found this one . Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  As covered in the nomination, DualShockers is not considered a reliable source per WP:VG/S - at any rate it is a listicle and provides some praise but a vague description of the game. VRXCES (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, all coverage is from unreliable sources, is primary, or is trivial coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:24, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment El Diario and Mundo UR are both established sources in Venezuela. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

  Reliability of the source isn't being challenged here - independence and depth of coverage are. VRXCES (talk) 11:00, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Just addressing Zxcvbnm's vote. The responses about independence and depth are above. While I'm at it, like I mentioned, it should be noted that the interview in Mundo UR (Unión Radio) is not a podcast, but rather part of the radio station's normal programming. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

El Diario is undoubtedly trivial coverage. Regarding Mundo UR, WP:PRIMARY coverage is not indicative of notability even if it can be used to improve the article itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:10, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

No worries, I read it as an or statement so assumed ZX was not labelling all sources as unreliable. That's fair - I ran with the UR interpretation as it described itself as an episode. VRXCES (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:11, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Despite the new sources, depth looks insufficient. Delete. IgelRM (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:52, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete The coverage provided above is not significant enough. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:08, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

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.