Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caesars Palace (video 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 redirect to Realtime Associates. (non-admin closure) — MRD2014 ^Talk 03:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Caesars Palace (video game)[edit]

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

Non-notable video game. Originally redirected by Czar (talk · contribs) in 2015, after he searched for reliable sources, it was restored without any improvement, including adding back unreliable sources that Czar had previously removed. I restored the redirect, since it went uncontested for 3 years, but was reverted. Note that there are multiple games with this title or similar over the years. I can find no coverage of this 1992 edition from Virgin Interactive. -- ferret (talk) 02:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 02:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Lack of sources present to meet the WP:GNG (neither of the two given are an RS). Honestly can't believe an experienced editor repeatedly undid the redirect (with ludicrous "rvv" edit summary) while keeping it in such shoddy shape. Disappointing. Sergecross73 msg me 02:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What about the amount of reviews on mobygames? There are 15 reviews of the game (Which should pass GNG easily) Some of these are very reliable sources, such as the Official Nintendo Magazine, RAZE, and Power Play, plus more. I'm suprised no one used these links to just simply improve the article (There are actual links to what is said, if the article had these references, it would have never been AfD'd. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we don't typically view official console magazines as going towards GNG, since they are primary for the console maker itself (I.e. not secondary coverage). I'm not familiar with Raze, but the coverage there is very light and basically just states what it is. Many of the others listed are unreliable per WP:VG/S. Player One is vetted and reliable, and closest to an indepth source, but that's one source. Keep in mind, looking for reliable secondary indepth coverage. I didn't see enough to satisfy GNG in my eyes, would have sent to AFD even if some of these were used.-- ferret (talk) 12:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you're arguing - the potential of sources being out there - could save the article from deletion, but not usually redirect/merge arguments, when there's a plausible redirect target. If all that can be sourced is a basic definition and a release date (and even that's done with non-reliable sources) then it should be redirected until someone can actually access and use said sources to write a proper article. Which is not particularly likely when we're talking about an early 1990s game with all of its sources locked away in print magazines, and wasn't ever particularly popular to begin with. If you look through the page history, you'll see that the article existed for a decade prior to being redirected in 2015, and during that time, never received any proper sourcing or meaningful, encyclopedic improvements. Sergecross73 msg me 13:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a redirect discussion. This is a AfD. There a 9 publications on there that have links (and a further 6 that have a summary from print) that could easily be used to create an article. AfD discussions are to prove if an subject is non-notable. See WP:BEFORE Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I already said, I reviewed these, so WP:BEFORE was done. Almost all of those are unreliable sources.The Video Game Critic, Nerdicus, Questicle, etc. Additionally, the existence of a source doesn't mean it helps establish notability. A source with 2-3 sentences about a game for example doesn't really help. We need some indepth coverage, and of the currently available sources, only one really goes beyond a cursory description. -- ferret (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, I shouldn't have to tell you that REDIRECT is a valid outcome at WP:AFD, especially in cases like this, where the whole dispute is centered around undoing and redoing a redirect of an article. It's literally recommended as something to consider on the edit notice that you (probably didn't) read when you make edits to this very discussion (and every AFD). (It can be viewed here as well if you still don't know what I'm talking about.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Realtime Associates, the developer. No sources cited and if the reviews mentioned in MobyGames were to exist in any depth, we would first cover the game's basics in brief in the parent article (summary style) and split out to a separate article only when appropriate. This is how most of that developer's games should be handled, as most are marketing tie-ins. czar 10:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Czar's suggestion. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - As already noted, the coverage listed on Mobygames is pretty minimal. Sourcing for games this old (1991-92) can be hard to dig up even when the game in question is notable, but in the unlikely event someone later proves willing and able to improve this article to the point where it unambiguously meets notability standards, undoing a redirect takes no effort at all.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2018 (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.