Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Begin (computer game)

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. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Begin (computer game)

The article does not seem to establish any notability for the subject, providing as a cite a link to the games own wiki. ~~Merge into a general list of minor Star Trek games.~~ Alastairward (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're for a merge into a list of Star Trek games, what is the point of this AfD? Are you actually proposing that anything be deleted? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a revised Star Trek (text game) to parallel Star Trek (role-playing game). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkmurray (talk • contribs)
Reject AfD per procedure. AfD is not the place for merger proposals, the talk page of a given article is. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my contention then is delete no merge. Alastairward (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Forms valuable notable example of early era of computer games in DOS mainframes. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability via reliable sources; all that is presently cited are a wiki and a few fansites, neither of which are verifiable. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Another retrocomputing example that falls into the critical 1975-1995 era of pre-internet products that are difficult to document. Also merge in content from Begin2, which appears to me a minor rev. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How is "difficult to document" a reason to keep an article? No matter how "difficult" the subject is to document, the necessary reliable sources must be provided regardless. This is entirely what verifiability is about; if the appropriate sources cannot be found, they are useless. We do not keep things based on the speculative idea that sources might exist. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not sure whether this game is notable by Wikipedia's standards or not but I am familiar with it, and if someone can describe what evidence of notability for such a game might look like, I will go look for it. Begin was originally shareware distributed through Bulletin Board Systems, and I cannot imagine what record of its progress through them might still exist. Most material on the game available on the internet today will either be procedurally generated or be related to the recent revival of the game's development by one of its original programmers. However, Home of the Underdogs and Abandonia did see fit to write articles on the game before that revival occurred: [1] [2] Begin has never been played by that many people at any one time but it has continued to attract new players for over two decades, so chronologically at least it has a significant player base. To clarify for Maury, the game is often referred to as "Begin 2" rather than just "Begin", because Begin 2 was the only graphical version until a few months ago, and has naturally attracted the largest number of players. However, Begin 1 uses most of the same underlying code, and is one of very few strategic computer games which can be played by the blind. Restoring that functionality is a goal for Begin 3. Begin reportedly appeared in Audyssey Magazine [3] at one point, but being a publication for the blind it's not a high priority for most libraries. Robin Moshe (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - This is a classic and notable Star Trek game. Even the nom does not want to delete the article. The nom has nominated this article for a merge. Why is this an AfD? Let's bring this AfD to a speedy end (keep), and move the merge discussion to the talk page.Varbas (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, my mistake, from merge to outright delete. Alastairward (talk) 23:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, regardless of what the nominator says, it doesn't qualify for speedy keep now because other editors have expressed opinions for deleting the article. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:45, 24 May 2009 (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.