Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acrophobia (game) (2nd nomination)

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. It's apparent from this discussion that consensus hasn't changed from the previous AFD. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acrophobia (game)[edit]

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

does not meet the requirements of wp:notability. the single third party, reliable source is a wired article from 1997. 1 article doesnt equal notability Theserialcomma (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Wired article is very in-depth, and I think the following sources shown in the previous AfD contribute to show notability:

Gadgets, Games and Gizmos for Learning is a notable bit of coverage.

Interactive Storytelling has a passage on its problems.

There are other books noted in that AfD that mention it, but not in sufficient detail. The article isn't in a very good state, but I think it passes WP:GNG. Bigger digger (talk) 00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment let's be honest with our sources. the "gadgets, games, and gizmos" source has a 3 sentence mention in a 417 page book. This is a trivial mention, not substantial coverage and your second source is about ACROPHOBIA, a web game. this article is about acrophobia, an IRC game. you should rethink what wikipedia means by 'notable' and 'widespread, significant third party coverage' and decide if a trivial mention in 1 book about a completely different game, and a 3 sentence mention in another book, plus one article in wired = significant coverage. it doens't Theserialcomma (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As I said, the article is problematic, it should be about the game in general, not the IRC iteration. Furthermore, "widespread" is not used in at all in WP:N. It also states that ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." For me those sources achieve that; your threshold is apparently different. Bigger digger (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I see 1 notable review. The two book references are barely notable mentions. The board game was not influenced by this game. The article does not provide any other ascertaition of notability as different from any other chat-based game. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if sourced and material from them introduced properly. I guess those two books are a bit more than "barely notable".— HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the GGG reference has three paragraphs, not three sentences (it continues on the next page which isn't obvious due to a bad placement of a figure). That coverage is very solid. The book plus the Wired article is enough, the rest is ~~(a fairly weak)~~ gravy. Hobit (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, upon rereading the last source is better than I thought. Brief summary of the game and fairly detailed description of why it failed. Not bad. Hobit (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bigger digger. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete the keep arguments ignore the facts. 1 wired review and 1 book mention is not notability —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.8.154 (talk) 03:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC) — 166.205.8.154 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.