Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squish 'em

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 avoided being squished. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Squish 'em[edit]

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

I could not find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Delete per WP:GNG. Author contested the WP:PROD. Odie5533 (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you want to delete this page. Squish'em is a well known videogame ported to many platforms (Atari, Commodore, Colecovision) and you can find many references to it on Game sites and videos on Youtube. If you remove this, you should remove any other videogame on Wikipedia. Friol (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Squish 'em does not meet the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia because it is not notable. To be considered notable, a game must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Other video games meet this criteria through things like news publications and reviews or other analysis. Squish 'em does not. See WP:GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not able to say if this game "received significant coverage" in 1983, since I would hardly find 1983 newspapers or magazines. What I can say is that, considering its ports to many platforms (Commodore, Atari, Colecovision, etc.) and considering that in 1983 you could find this game in many different countries (even in Italy - remember that Internet was a dream, in 1983), this game should have easily sold thousand of copies back in the Eighties. This is a game published by an historical producer (Sirius Software, go read about it if you haven't) and spread worldwide. If you consider also that remakes of it have been done in 2007 (see the Atari 2600 port), I can pretty confidently say that yes, this game was "notable", if people still remember it after 25 years. Friol (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I can find 1983 magazines after all.

Infoworld (19 nov 1984) cites "Squish'em" as "literary classic":

http://books.google.com/books?id=pS4EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA13&dq=squish+em+sirius&hl=it&ei=v1SRTqyxI9Ci-gai7YXzCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=squish%20em%20sirius&f=false

Byte (1984) describes it:

http://books.google.com/books?id=A5E_AQAAIAAJ&q=squish+em+sirius&dq=squish+em+sirius&hl=it&ei=YVaRTrjqBcbqObuMmcsN&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAQ

You can find other references in German books:

http://www.c64-wiki.de/index.php/Rombachs_C64-Spielef%C3%BChrer

Friol (talk) 10:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of those appear to support notability and offer only trivial mentions of the game's existence. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems you are starting to climb with nails on mirrors (but less skillfully than the game's main character) in your search for "notability". The game is cited as a "classic" in the first magazine; you can find more than 50.000 results on Google searching for "Squish em Sam". The game was spread worldwide; even a German *book* cites it. Sirius Software, the publisher, is cited in "Hackers" by S.Levy (I hope this book is "notable" enough). To me, this game is a classic of the 8-bit era, and deserves its encyclopedic place. Now I hope to hear opinions from other users of Wikipedia too. Friol (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

100% KEEP and improve by adding a screenshot, categories, and etcs. Odie5533 knows nothing about retrogames. Just nothing. --Hydao (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ADHOM, from Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid argument, Hydao. Knowledge on the game isn't necessary, it's knowlege on notability guidelines that matters. Sergecross73 msg me 17:33, 12 October 2011 (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) 19:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep - Article is a mess. Terribly written, poorly sourced, etc. Needs third party, reliable sources in the article, and then use them to write something that actually has content/substance. Notability certainly isn't established as is. Sergecross73 msg me 17:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Article has been greatly improved. No longer have any problems with it. Sergecross73 msg me 19:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are we criticizing the article for the notability of this game or for my bad skills at writing English text? I supposed it was the former. Sorry guys, I'm not so good at writing Wikipedia articles. English isn't my mother tongue either, but, well, Wikipedia is good because YOU can improve the articles as well, so please do it if you can. About "poor sources": I know this game is the sequel of "Sewer Sam" and that it's called also "Squish em featuring Sam" from the cover's scan. How can I "cite" that? Friol (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both. Sergecross73 msg me 19:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully better sourced the article and added a screenshot from the Colecovision version. Friol (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User "Someone another" vastly improved the article. Friol (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although AFD is not clean-up, the article needed something of a leg-up so I've worked it up to Start-class and used a cite from allgame. The content is verified (WP:V). Regarding notability, I would only count both aspects of Brett Weiss' allgames writeup as a single source, which is not normally enough for notability. However, using the result of internet searches to judge or establish notability of pre-PS2 era video games is meaningless. Outside of the Spectrum, Amiga and few other moderately covered systems the internet does not reveal a true picture of the sources available. Someone without knowledge of what is now the 'retro gaming' scene could be forgiven for thinking that multi-million selling systems such as the NES, Mega Drive, Commodore 64 and Gameboy received little to no magazine and book coverage back in the day. A quick search of Ebay for magazines on these systems would show that to be a false assumption. Without being able to point to sources directly one has to weigh up the game itself. Its age counts against it, the early 80s is before the 'gaming magazine' idea really took off, though there were computing magazines back then. On the other hand, this is a colourful arcade game released on a number of popular systems, which makes the chance of it not being covered somewhere remote. So, despite not passing WP:N as it stands (IMO), I think removing it because nobody currently has access to a stack of 25+ year old magazines while sat at their keyboard would be a waste. Someone another 19:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you. The same thing goes with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sansara_Naga_2 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Super_Family_Gerende. Articles like these should be improved, not deleted. --Hydao (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Someone another: Your argument leads to keeping all pre-PS2 era video games unless it can be shown that there are no reliable sources covering them. I think this is backwards of the way described in the WP:GNG and I certainly disagree with you on this. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to note that although most people probably don't have access to a stack of 25+ year old magazines, I do. I looked through the first dozen issues of one of the best magazines from the time, Commodore User, from June 1983 to September 1984, and did not find any reference of this game. This does not prove anything, however, because the burden of proof to support the claim that reliable sources exist or even are likely to exist falls on the side making such a claim. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a case of blanket keeping all older games, but using web-searches to determine the fate of these games' articles alone is basing the process on a tool which we know is largely inadequate for the job. Budget games for consoles, games released on a single system, seriously old video games which are obscure, bog-standard clones of popular titles and educational software are all less likely to be covered, so I would personally think twice before supporting retention if a google search provided nothing. Despite being something of a clone of Crazy Climber, and an old game, this one had already received non-trivial coverage on allgame, meaning all that is needed is a little more info for reception. It's a shame that there's no coverage in Commodore User, but thanks for looking. It's just a single magazine, however, and this particular game has been released in both Europe and the States on multiple systems. The source found by Dream Focus demonstrates what I'm trying to say - if a game is of the type that should have coverage then chances are it will have. Someone another 23:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Taking into account the most recent updates, and as per Someoneanother. Salvidrim (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears Notable, just because its not around anymore doesnt mean it should be forgotten, the artical is start-class in legnth, and descriptive and detailed enough, it has reliable sources, why delete? – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Deseret News - Jun 13, 1984 Gives a full review of it. Most media sources aren't archived online that far back, but fortunately, I found that one. Dream Focus 19:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good meaty source for reception, well done for finding it. Someone another 23:12, 16 October 2011 (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.