Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amadeus Revenge

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus with no prejudice against efforts to merge/redirect the article. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amadeus Revenge[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Amadeus Revenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has minimal sources, and is largely reliant on game database entries - ABC Online just quotes MobyGames on the subject. I searched for additional sources through archive.org, and found nothing. This article essentially has only 3 solid sources, which I believe doesn't establish notability. No gaming magazines at the time seem to have covered it other than Commodore Computer Club, and the only retrospective sources are the Retro Gamer Article, and the article by ABC Online, which I feel doesn't really cover the game in a substantial way. Commodore 64 fansites and databases I've scoured also don't list any reviews or previews on the game. Waxworker (talk) 10:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The basic requirements are met. WP:GNG controls and although 3 RSes is not very many, the guideline only asks for "multiple sources": "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." Speculating that no paper-based magazines ever covered the game is just guesswork. The internet does not in fact cover all paper sources. None of the other elements of the GNG are in question, so it's basically not a question of whether it's notable or not but rather whether it's notable enough. The greentext directs me to keep. -Thibbs (talk) 11:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    One additional brief note: the discussion of MobyGames is nothing but a red herring. The Wikipedia article under discussion does not use the MobyGames quotation and it's obvious that the RS does not lose RS status simply by quoting a non-RS. Perhaps a better argument would be in relation to substantiality, but there simply isn't any relationship between the WP article and MobyGames. The MobyGames quote is never used or presented in the WP article. -Thibbs (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - ABC and book cites are more than fine for WP:GNG. It's not like a Commodore game from the 80's is going to be profuse with NY Times and Wired articles. HocusPocus00 (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:PAPERONLY.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart in popular culture. I wasn't planning to participate but I was really surprised by the above comments (and slight on the nom, who did due diligence), enough to look into the sourcing: First, the ABC "article" has nothing to do with the game. It quotes from MobyGames (user-submitted) in lieu of offering any new analysis for notability purposes. If anything, it indicates that the title can be mentioned in a section or article about Mozart's influence (hint hint). Second, the Retro Gamer "article" has exactly three sentences (!!) on the game as part of a list of games in a sidebar. Third, so essentially the case hinges on the article in the Italian hobbyist magazine Commodore Computer Club. But it too has little substance. Altogether, I'm not seeing how anyone can make the case that we can write a full encyclopedia article on this subject without devolving into original research from primary sources. No case for significant coverage has been made from these three existing sources. If any further print sources exist, in a field that has been very, very well archived compared to other disciplines, those sources are unscanned and unindexed and unknown to us. And we don't keep articles based on what might exist. There are a few different merge options as an alternative to deletion. czar 23:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't actually see the slight to the nom, but if it came from me then I apologize. No offense was intended. The continuing concerns over MobyGames seems to be ill-founded. For the last four years the most trusted, gold standard, and unimpeachable political news sources on either side of the political divide have quoted Donald Trump ad nauseam and everyone knows that this doesn't bring the RSes' reputations down to the level of the president's level of reliability. If an unreliable source (or even just a source of unknown reliability) is used directly to support a claim in Wikipedia then that is a concern. But simply quoting an unreliable source does not invalidate the reliability of an RS that is commenting on the non-RS. I recognize that this is kind of WP:FLOGging the point, but there is 0.0% of the MobyGame quotation that appears in the Wikipedia article. No part of the MobyGames quote appears in the Wikipedia article - neither closely nor distantly paraphrased. I don't think the MobyGames quote has any relevance to this discussion at all. It's a distraction.
    The substantiality/significance arguments are much better considered but unfortunately they rely on subjective characterizations. Do we characterize Retro Gamer's coverage as an article, subsection, paragraph, or brief mention? Here, for example, we see a brief mention in an article from GamesRadar (which is an RS). It is insignificant and I don't think it could be relied upon to support a claim of notability. But when Retro Gamer uses Amadeus Revenge as 1 of only 4 DIY construction software "gems", I find the question of coverage at least arguable. At the end of the day there is no guideline or policy defining significance of coverage. Indeed the same goes for the definition of "a full encyclopedia article". It's left to the subjective evaluations of those forming a (local) consensus. It's murky. It's tenuous. But I will agree with Czar that if consensus goes against keeping then alternatives are the obvious next step. Deletion here seems pointless. -Thibbs (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The content of the block quote from MobyGames is really a minor point here and no one else is dwelling on it. (It's user-submitted so it could even be the verbatim official description for all we know.) The point is more that ABC as a source contributes no substance for our purposes beyond quoting that description from MobyGames.
    re: "subjective characterizations": Discussing whether sources constitute significant coverage is the bread and butter of AfD, and the general notability guideline itself excludes brief mentions from that definition. A three-sentence mention in the most notable of magazines remains a three-sentence mention. If that is the disqualifying bar for an article, it proves more about the topic's lack of coverage than any editor could say. If Retro Gamer cites four "DIY construction software 'gems'", that point can potentially be noteworthy in an article about DIY construction software but doesn't signify that there is enough context to write dedicated articles on each of those four "gem" selections. For what it's worth, magazine sidebar content is often closer to filler material (look at me/keep reading!) than actual superlatives. czar 21:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "no one else is dwelling on it" - I've dwelt because the false claim persists. The nomination says "ABC Online just quotes MobyGames". That's false on its face. The portion that supports the claim on Wikipedia provides only substance from ABC staff rather than any part of MobyGames. The merge !vote 2 days later says "[ABC] quotes from MobyGames (user-submitted) in lieu of offering any new analysis". Again that is demonstrably false. Participants at this AfD can look at the portion used in Wikipedia and compare it to the ABC staff content and the MobyGames content. If it still seems as though the ABC content in WP is drawn from a user-submitted quotation on MobyGames then we find ourselves agreeing to disagree on the facts. The interpretations of things like the true meaning of sidebar content represent subjective opinions, of course, and naturally all participants are entitled to them. But I feel like the "ABC = MobyGames" canard is just factually incorrect and potentially confusing for other participants. -Thibbs (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
full quote from ABC

Amadeus Revenge

That's right, Mozart was made into a game for the Commodore 64. While this modern interpretation of Mozart may seem a far stretch of the imagination, funnily enough it’s an apt metaphor for what it’s like to wander through an orchestra mid-performance.

Here’s how Moby Games described it:

You are Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, trapped in some parallel reality. Your mind is filled with musicians and your "Concerto in C". Starting from the bottom you should break through to the top of your Sheet Music, which represents "Concerto in C". During your perilous travel, musicians of different kinds will want to kill you with the notes they've reproduced with their musical instruments. Each time the musician creates the note it is simulated with appropriate sound effect. You should avoid the notes and eliminate their sources gaining the points.

One can’t help but think that the limitations of technology back then forced everyone to be more creative.

What am I missing? ABC's full Amadeus Revenge section is quoted above. Remove its MobyGames block quote and it offers nothing of substance we can use for an encyclopedia article...
No one has mentioned the current article's prose or what it cites from ABC because it isn't relevant. We're talking about what the ABC source contributes to notability. Our article's current text has no bearing on whether ABC constitutes significant coverage. It doesn't even need to mention ABC at all for our purposes. czar 00:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, and I think you've just hit it squarely. By considering ABC without the MobyGames (user-submitted) quote (which of course would invalidate ABC's reliability), we are able to come to a subjective conclusion about whether a subsection of the article is insufficient to demonstrate substantiality. Rather than dismissing ABC as a matter of fact (i.e. "MobyGames is a Non-RS ergo ABC is invalid") we allow subjective consideration to enter into the discussion. As I've said from my first (smalltext section) comment above, the substantiality (AKA significant coverage) prong is potentially worth discussing. Calling out MobyGames as a means to invalidate ABC as an RS is inappropriate here. MobyGames is entirely orthogonal to the WP article and its use in !votes above has muddied the waters needlessly. -Thibbs (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're arguing against something no one has said? Anyway, I think I already made my point about the substance of the ABC source clear, so I'm bowing out here. czar 01:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is arguing that the MobyGames quote is a copy violation. I brought up the MobyGames issue because I feel that the ABC online source doesn't offer any new insight into the game and doesn't establish notability, as other than one single sentence the article just quotes MobyGames. If you have to point out that the info provided by MobyGames isn't being sourced, then what are you sourcing from the ABC article? It's not like they reviewed the game – they're just mentioning that it exists. Waxworker (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah my use of earwig's tool above may be confusing. I'm objecting to the discussion of MobyGames that appears in all non-keep !votes. The MobyGames quote neither constitutes 100% of the ABC source (per "ABC Online just quotes MobyGames") nor does its quotation in ABC taint ABC as a non-RS (per "[Non-RS] MobyGames [] in lieu of [] any [] analysis"). The ABC citation and quotation in the WP article represents an original idea and an original comment as developed by the ABC staff member who wrote it. It doesn't come from MobyGames so the repeated discussion of MobyGames' status as a non-RS is inapposite. It doesn't support the argument for deletion. I hope it won't form any part of the basis for any participant's conclusions. Maybe the argument is that the ABC source isn't alone sufficient to demonstrate notability, but the sufficiency here comes from the substance of the source (size, percent, significance, etc.) rather than its reliability. It would be a minor issue but for the fact that MobyGames has been evoked in literally every non-keep !vote from the original PROD to the AfD nomination to the merge vote. MobyGames is not something that is related to a rational argument against keeping. It's a bugaboo. Arguing the substance and significance of sources like ABC is fine. It needn't take on the false mantle of unreliability to which it is repeatedly tied above. -Thibbs (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(And Waxworker: no hard feelings about any of this, I hope. I actually really admire your work. I agree with Czar that you have made a good effort to follow WP:BEFORE. If it seemed like I was questioning that, please dismiss it from your mind. -Thibbs (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this at the request of User:Czar. I'll also recuse myself from closing it in the future since I went for keep with the suggestion of discussing merge on the appropriate talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is a numerical tilt towards keeping this, those arguing to keep have not, in my view, demonstrated the existence of substantive coverage in RS; and the burden to demonstrate its existence is really on them. Relisting for another week, but absent more participation, I can only see this as a "no consensus".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 02:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If we can forget about all of the "non-RS" discussion above as a distraction, the central issue would have to be substantiality. There is no definition for substantiality. Or to put it differently everyone has a personal definition for substantiality, but it's one of those "YMMV" scenarios. It is subjective and it's a matter of impression. There are several metrics that can be taken into account. For some the total word count is critical. For others it might be the percentage of the source dedicated to the topic. Some may consider section sizes as a liminal issue: If a book isn't devoted to the topic, a single chapter may still prove adequate... or not. The equivalent in a single article might be a subsection or depending on the circumstances only a single paragraph. But none of these metrics provide the definitive answer. At a certain point the argument becomes ridiculous. I would hope that a single sentence in the middle of a long article or a mere namedrop mention would never be considered sufficient to demonstrate notability. But where to draw the line between substantial and unsubstantial is a personal decision. See also: The Mzoli's Meats arguments, etc. -Thibbs (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a hundred AfDs every day—we have a working understanding of significant coverage and it's more than the exceedingly little that has been written in sources about this. Total word count is not a measure of significant coverage—it has to come down to what we can write about the topic, especially given the well-known fluffiness of games journalism. I invite the other participants to read the sources. @HocusPocus00 and Zxcvbnm There's no potential future beyond a permastub for this topic based on the dearth of coverage, hence why merger to an existing article is a suitable alternative to deletion. czar 05:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't spend much time at AfD in general so if there is a working understanding that is based on widespread consensus then I may have to revise my view, but if it's just a matter of custom then I'd err on the side of pillars, policies, and guidelines. I think it's worth noting that neither WP:SIGCOV nor WP:STUBDEF draw a solid line between substantial and unsubstantial coverage. SIGCOV places the line somewhere between book-length history and a brief mention in a single sentence. I trust that any neutral person would agree that the topic of this AfD falls somewhere between those two. I think the lack of a definition here is intentional. STUBDEF is interesting in that it discusses "breadth of coverage expected from an encyclopedia" but again it fails to pin down the dividing line except in subjective terms and its use of the word "expected" rather than "required" again suggests deliberate ambiguity. I suppose I go too far to say that the absence of a hard rule speaks volumes, but to me it seems clear that subjective consensus (whether or not its subjectivity is recognized) is the only way to achieve an answer. FWIW again, I agree that Merge is a better option here than deletion. -Thibbs (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amadeus_Revenge&oldid=999810127"