Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Into Oblivion (video game)

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 keep. The article is a very different article to the article that was nominated. Since the improvements, no-one has argued to delete. Mkativerata (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Into Oblivion (video game)[edit]

Into Oblivion (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable video game, no mention of publisher or game system, totally unreferenced, may very well be something someone made up one day, only "external" links point to users own desktop WuhWuzDat 04:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wuhwuzdat - I think you were too quick off the mark with your comments, as it looked like the page was uunfinished when you made your remarks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.231.91 (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non notable because it is 24 years old. Publisher mentioned. Images uploaded properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpc chine (talk • contribs) 05:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete' - Definitely not made up. However, videogames (even old games) aren't inherently notable, and there's no evidence either in the article or in my good faith searches of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Also, the images in the article have an insufficient fair use rationale and the article text appears to be a copyright violation of this site (unless it's just back of the box text, in which case it's a copyvio of the original product). - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Text is not sufficiently paraphrased, and asserting that screenshots are from your PC is not a sufficient fair use rationale. Please see WP:FAIRUSE and WP:SCREEN. The fact this game is included in a list or that similar games have articles is not an adequate ground to keep the article. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Screenshots are from my PC even if they are not, it is irrelevant due to the fact the game is no longer copyrighted and is a free download. Publisher no longer exists. Satisifies WP:FAIRUSE
  • WP:SCREEN is not WP policy and just recommendations. Screen grabs are not violating copyrights.
  • Yes, exactly, you'll note that the blanket acceptance of screen grabs as acceptable is no longer WP policy. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Referencing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS adds strength to argument to keep page - since notability is being contested, this argument can be introduced.
  • And if you'd read the page, you'd see that the thrust of it is that merely claiming that other stuff exists is not a helpful argument - that it can only be a valid keep reason where you reason from the existence of article A and B through to a benefit to the project in keeping article C. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And again, if you'd read that page, instead of attempting witticism, you'd see it's arguing against spamming links without bothering to explain or argue your interpretation of them. While we're on the subject, doing something you don't appreciate in order to show someone else how annoying it can be is specifically against Wikipedia policy. See WP:BEANS. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And more importantly, you've not addressed my initial point. Every article on Wikipedia must be notable. How do you say this article passes the general notability guidelines? - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All I was trying to do was expand a stub on a game that already was listed hereList_of_Amstrad_CPC_games. It is just as "notable" as most of these games that are listed, the ones that do not have pages and the one that do. I found some old games and decided why not, since there isnt a page already on this particular game. sure, initially the page was crap, but it is looking better (images have been removed now, so not so good) and it feels like this entire mob has attacked me like crazy. Quoting this and that from various links. Violating of this, breach of that...Sorry for trying here. There are no violations of copyrights. The only thing I really can't do is show how notable the game is. If you didn't have an 8 bit computer from the 80's (Amstrad, C64 etc) you would have never heard of this game. Even though it has been played by hundreds of thousands globally. It was shipped for free for anyone who purchased a colour CPC 464 in the mid 80's in New Zealand - That is notable!
  • Maybe I need to go elsewhere for this sort of thing, ie CPCWIKI [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpc chine (talk • contribs) 23:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this is a good-faith attempt to improve Wikipedia. All that we ask is that game game got some coverage from the magazines of that era, which is very possible given that the publisher is Mastertronic. I will check the online magazine archives this week. CPC Chine, I'm sorry you received this kind of, in my opinion, newbie bashing. The image copyright issue isn't even relevant to this discussion. 164.38.32.28 (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks 164.38.32.28 for the rational, sensible and refreshing comment. Feels like there is some power trips going on with the whole newbie bashing / new page patrol. Interesting how the images were pulled off as copyright violations... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpc chine (talk • contribs) 22:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Followup - Okay, didn't take as long as I thought. Amstrad Action, issue 9, page 53. Scan available here. Coverage from an additional source would be preferred. Marasmusine (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it was also reviewed in either Amitix / Computing with the Amstrad / Amstrad Computer User magazines... Trying to find magazine scans with easy searchability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpc chine (talk • contribs) 00:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Into_Oblivion
  • http://www.cpcgamereviews.com/i/index3.html#into_oblivion
  • http://tacgr.emuunlim.com/downloads/filedetail.php?recid=467
  • http://cpcoxygen.fxwebdevelopment.com/aa_depot/009JS.html (PAGE 53) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.231.91 (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - is the consensus??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpc chine (talk • contribs) 02:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Unfortunately In Oblivion wasn't reviewed in AMTIX [2]. I have not yet been able to find a Amstrad Computer User archive. However, we are still left with one solid piece of coverage. If we ever have a "List of Mastertronic games" then merging there is a possibility. Marasmusine (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference to Mastertronic artwork for Into Oblivion found: http://www.guter.org/mastertronic_artwork.htm & http://www.guter.org/images_mastertronic/into_oblivion.jpg

"Into Oblivion, Amstrad, Mastertronic 199 1986 and probably used on another cover much earlier as the painting was made well before the game was published" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.231.91 (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2010 (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/Into_Oblivion_(video_game)&oldid=1137933719"