Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I-War (1995 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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I-War (1995 video game)[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD from years back. Despite that, the article remains a completely unsourced stub. As the contesting editor noted, there are a whopping two reviews from notable/reliable publications listed at Mobygames: one from EGM, and the obligatory review in GamePro, who devoted a whole three sentences to the game. They also list a review from Video Games & Computer Entertainment, but I can't confirm its existence since I don't have any issues of that magazine. My researches have turned up next to nothing in the way of previews, development info, or after-market commentary. There just doesn't seem much significant coverage of this game. Martin IIIa (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: are sources like these considered to be reliable for subjects like these or are they "too closely connected"? (as it's not a news site or magazine or anything) because otherwise I or someone else could expand it based on this source. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 06:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the Mobygames page itself, or the sources it links to? Mobygames is unreliable because it uses user-submitted content, though it can be a helpful resource for finding reliable sources. Some of the sources linked from Mobygames are reliable and some are not; WP:WikiProject Video games/Sources is a helpful guide.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks like a notable game, that makes no argument towards notability. Some Reviews from notable publications Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - there are reviews, although almost all are bad. [[1]] [[2]] [[3]] Nonetheless, it did exist and was part of the Atari Jaguar console library. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Existence ≠ Notability. I already addressed the Mobygames listing in my nomination (gotta love it when people vote on an AFD without reading why it's been nominated). Wikipedia's general notability guidelines are that the subject has been extensively covered by multiple notable/reliable sources, so the fact that I-War was reviewed by a grand total of two notable/reliable sources (again, one of which only allotted three sentences to the game), rather than proving I-War is notable, proves that it is not notable.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to correct a frequent misconception: the GNG requires that coverage be "significant", not "extensive". Also, bad reviews contribute as much to notability as good ones. Newimpartial (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did read your nomination - did you count the sources I listed? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AtariHQ is in the RS list. --Izno (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Video Games & Computer Entertainment was apparently published as Video Games - The Ultimate Gaming Magazine from September 1993 to its end in mid-1996. Archive.org has a copy of the issue and the review appears on page 88 with the associated 6 out of 10 score. I think this is a weak keep, given VG - TUGM, Atari HQ, EGM, and the three sentences in GamePro. --Izno (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- these games are a dime a dozen; the article offers no sources and no encyclopedically relevant prose. Coverage offered above is of routine nature and does not amount to WP:SIGCOV. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep reviews aren't amazing (either the depth of review nor the ranking of this game) but meet WP:N. I'd prefer a merge into something like a more detailed List of Atari Jaguar games given that these reviews all seem to lean more toward list-type reviews themselves. Hobit (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I know various magazines from the era that reviewed the title and more recent reviews by some notable online outlets that i plan to add to the article to make it more presentable for Wikipedia, that's one of my projects here on the site when it comes to the Jaguar. I really hate when people want to delete articles to the games related to the system so i say keep the article. I plan to expand it in the future. -- KGRAMR (talk) 13:08, 4 March 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.