Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bargon Attack

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) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 09:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bargon Attack

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

No indication that this video game has garnered significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of magazine reviews listed on Mobygames ([1]). MarvellousMeatpuppet (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. MarvellousMeatpuppet pretty much said it all.--Coin945 (talk) 02:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)There are better reasons to want to keep this.[reply]
Delete. I appreciate the bar is pretty damn low for computer games, but I just cannot see how this in any way meets any kind of notability criteria for computer games. Article does not assert any kind of notability.--Legis (talk - contribs) 13:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Legis: The article already includes information from 4 critical reviews found on Mpbygames (Joystick (French), Génération 4, Joker Verlag präsentiert: Sonderheft, and Power Play) so your assertion is a little confusing. --Coin945 (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A little more sluething has uncovered this review of the game in a Print magazine called " Amiga Joker", a little bit of info about the development, a review in Obligement, and this book that describes the game as "especially notable".--Coin945 (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the game was originally released in Spanish/French so chances are there will be few English sources.--Coin945 (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator: Firstly, game is old so most reviews will be in hard-to-find print media (common for games from this era). Secondly, game was released in France/Spain so understandably few English sources exist. Thirdly, even the few sources currently in the article demonstrate the game's notability.--Coin945 (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:VG/S, Mobygames is not a reliable reference, thus I have removed those references from the article. I don't have a view either way on the article's AfD. However, that evil Coin945 thinking 1992 games are old is a low blow. You young whippersnapper, stay off my monitor while I play my original Atari 2600 that I got for Christmas of 1978. Old, Pfft. :) Bgwhite (talk) 05:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I didn't mean to offend. I meant "old" in the the context of "pre-internet", as that means the vast majority of its sources will only appear in print magazines as opposed to, say, Metacritics. I also put back the review excerpts located at Mobygames. The reviews themselves are notable and I only linked to Mobygames as I don't have access to those print magazine, and the next best thing is using this site that has some information about them.--Coin945 (talk) 12:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Not a super strong case, but it has the requisite three reviews: Power Play, Amiga Joker, Joystick. Realistically, these types of games would be best explored in a List of Coktel Vision games fashion until they need to be spun out summary style. Also realistically, I wish those who edit in this space would stop using MobyGames as anything more than an initial index (it is not reliable and should not be used to source "X gave it 60%" [additionally, this phrase means nothing] and so on). Also, for what it's worth, this article had an astronomically low view count prior to this AfD. We're not doing anyone any favors by creating dedicated articles in this fashion. czar ♔ 00:50, 6 October 2014 (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.