Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High Times (video game)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

High Times (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)

Fails WP:GNG, most of the sources that reviewed it are unreliable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:38, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related AfD discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:38, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment I agree on current sourcing the review sources are mostly unreliable and does not demonstrate notability. That said, a WP:BEFORE does turn up quite a bit here. I can find a reliable GameReactor review and a situational Polygon review . There's also two reliable pre-release impressions from ShackNews and RPGFan () and a shorter one from Checkpoint Gaming (). Although not useful for notability, there is no shortage of routine coverage from mainstream outlets (). Given evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage and partial reliable coverage, this is a borderline case. As a PH game I wonder if any WP:NONENG coverage is out there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrxces (talk • contribs)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: LGBTQ+ studies and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:36, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - Previews by reliable sources (WP:VG/RS) Shacknews, Polygon and RPGFan, and review by Gamereactor are enough for WP:GNG. --Mika1h (talk) 09:59, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  I agree it is a borderline case with the sources discovered by Vrxces.

  It's not enough to make me withdraw the AfD and think it's unequivocally notable. Video game notability is already a pretty low bar. But I can see it being "weakly kept". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:52, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: The reception score infobox has been padded out with OpenCritic scores, making this look more notable than it is. Those should be removed as those make up a single aggregate score. This is not a GNG fail as there are many sources that discuss this title at length, the only visible problems are SURMOUNTABLE, which isn't grounds for deleting an article altogether. 11WB 💬 02:01, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per Mika1h. There are lots of coverages by many sources mentioned. Perhaps the only problem is how to combine all those information into more concise writing. The reception section should definitely be trimmed down. ~ Elisapoly (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2026 (UTC)