Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wizardry (The Edge)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 01:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wizardry (The Edge)

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

Sourced to game manual and one 'zine review of questionable reliability. WP:BEFORE discloses download sites and some social media, but little else. No significant coverage in WP:RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What problem do you see with Zzap! 64? After a quick search I found this game also reviewed in Your Commodore.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I personally recognize that it was a hardcopy, paper publication, so it probably meets the RS requirements, but you can't really blame someone for thinking a source as bizarrely (and seemingly unprofessionally) named "Zzap!64" may not be a reliable source. I mean, that was my gut reaction too, before looking it up. Sergecross73 msg me 16:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

really, we should somehow SIGNIFICANTLY rise the bar for deletion of content on wikipedia *sigh*, a "gut reaction" is clearly not high enough Shaddim (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely stating that a title like "Zzap!64" doesn't look like a reliable source at an initial glance. It's not an actual word, there's punctuation ("!") in between letters and numbers without a space, etc etc. It looks more like a random online pseudonym than a legit magazine. It was just a passing thought though, I wasn't using it as a reason to delete, nor do I have any idea if that had anything to do with the nominator's actual nomination. Sergecross73 msg me 19:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I beg for pardon, you were not specifically meant- I was somewhat venting my frustration over the waste of time and resources... if instead of deletion pushing some people would work on articles.... Shaddim (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep there is reception, no need for removal. Shaddim (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which consists of two very short sentences sourced to one reference. You need to prove it meets the WP:GNG, which at the very least requires multiple sources. Sergecross73 msg me 16:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

which is no problem if people would spend their time on finding sources instead of focusing on deletion of content. As reminder, the idea is that we create a encyclopedia, not delete it. Shaddim (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of this adds up to a valid keep argument. Look I'm not even advocating keep or delete yet, I'm just pointing out that your argument isn't valid in itself. I'm trying to help here. You need to be able to provide evidence for your claims - you can't just make vague allusions about a game's reception, or you get ignored. Sergecross73 msg me 19:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

which i did, the article is now well referenced. Point is: this is a waste of time, this could and should have done by the asker for deletion. I think making deletion request harder (and improving articles easier) would be really a good thing. Shaddim (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, we're on the same page now then. Sergecross73 msg me 21:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Shaddims source additions. Subjects from the 1980s often have coverage locked away in paper magazines. This appears to be the case here. Sergecross73 msg me 21:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I meant to get back to this sooner and add in the Your Commodore ref. I see Shaddim has already done that, but I did tidy it up quite a bit (don't know where he got the 80/100 score from). Anyway, 1980s games can be hard to dig up sources for, but we do seem to have at least the bare minimum needed to confirm notability.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2017 (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.