Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nitemare 3D

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The result was withdrawn. I believe reasonable evidence of non-trivial coverage has been demonstrated. JBsupreme (talk) 08:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nitemare 3D[edit]

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

Delete. If evidence can be found that this is notable, please leave me a note on my talk page and I will promptly withdraw. That said, I have searched all over Google News (and Google in general) and cannot find any evidence of this video game receiving anything that resembles non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. This excludes, automatically, user-submitted/generated content sites. Given that this game is apparently non-notable it should be deleted. JBsupreme (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, looks like a re-skin of Wolfenstein. Miami33139 (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A 1994 game cannot be expected to turn up much in online sources; online sources don't tend to cover stuff before their time beyond acknowledging their existence (for instance: GameSpot's coverage of Wolfenstein 3D, despite that one's influence on later games). Such an article needs to rely on contemporary print sources, a Google search is a waste of time for most games pre-1998. Did you attempt to look for any print sources that may have covered it? -- Sabre (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A relevant note, but a 1994 game that had any lasting popularity would have internet sources. Why did the people who have written this article over the last few years not include any sources? Miami33139 (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't think of a good reason to delete this article. It would be one thing if it was a totally obscure game that no one had ever heard of, but it was created by David Gray (publisher of Hugo's House of Horrors and its two sequels), and is fondly remembered by many of my website's visitors. It is not based on the Wolfenstein-3D engine. It is an original First Person Shooter written by a well-known shareware author. The shareware version could be found on any BBS at the time and was played by thousands of people. Probably very few people paid for the full version, but that would be true of most shareware games, and the shareware industry in general. Nitemare-3D is not some random, unknown game. DOSGuy (talk) 04:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason would be non-notable. There are hordes of shareware games that were played by hundreds or maybe even thousands of people but that doesn't guarantee you a Wikipedia article. We have policies restricting original research and requiring that each and every article be backed by reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 05:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I said, this is not a non-notable game. Thousands of shareware games were created but never widely played, but this isn't one of them. It was created by a well-known shareware author, was widely played, and is still remembered. This is not some random, unknown game. DOSGuy (talk) 06:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can you prove what you are saying? Seriously, you need to substantiate your claims, as much as I'd like to take your word at face value that is not how Wikipedia works. We would be doing a huge disservice to our readers if we did. JBsupreme (talk) 10:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think the real question is "how notable does a game have to be to deserve an article?" A game that no one has heard of obviously doesn't deserve an article. A game that many people played and still remember is "notable", so how high do you think the bar should be? This AfD wreaks of deletion for the sake of deletion. Being too ambitious about deletion is a disservice to our readers. cd.textfiles.com is a collection of "shovelware" CDs, which are those discs that advertised having "10,000 games!", many of which were created by a high school student who either gave the game away or asked you to send him $5 if you liked it. Play one of those games and you'll say, "This game is crap". Play Nitemare-3D and you can tell it meets a certain minimal level of quality. Ken Silverman (best remembered for his contributions to the Build engine) wrote his own 3D engine for Ken's Labyrinth. David Gray, similarly, wrote a 3D engine for this game. There were only a handful of 3D FPS engines when N3D was made, and those are the only two I can think of that were created by a single person. If you're only used to modern games, you may not be qualified to assess the quality of this game. If you played games at the time, it's absolutely obvious that N3D was a quality game by the standards of the day. It was widely played and is still fondly remembered. The only proof that I can offer you is that you have only to play the game to be able to tell that it's notable -- again, with the qualifier that you would have to have been a gamer at the time to be qualified to judge a game from that era. DOSGuy (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That is not how notability on Wikipedia works. I'd suggest you go read the guideline at WP:N. On Wikipedia, something is only considered notable if covered in reliable, secondary sources, not from our own experiences of topics. -- Sabre (talk) 15:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant game in relation to the Hugo series (i.e. the final Hugo game). Per Sabre's comment, internet sourcing is bound to be scant. A search of Google Books reveals coverage in numerous print sources. -Thibbs (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's some coverage in these print sources. These don't include contemporary magazine articles though, which would be the strongest sources, but these are a start:
- Beatty, Grace J.; Gardner, David C.; Sauer, David A. (1995). Cruising America Online 2.5. Prima. p. 110 onwards. ISBN 0761503021.
- Flopping: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases. ICON Group International, Inc. 2008. p. 32. ISBN 0546705944.
- Lyons, Eric R. (1995). Black art of Windows game programming. Waite Group Press. p. xxix and p. 277. ISBN 1878739956.
- Desjardins, Dawn (1997). Suchowski, Amy R (ed.). CD-ROMs in print 1998. Gale. p. 658, p. 1008 and p. 1286. ISBN 0787610593.
- Rating video games: a parent's guide to games. U.S. G.P.O. 1995. p. 236. ISBN 016046563X.
- -- Sabre (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps worth noting that the game also receives significant coverage in Polish sources such as the gaming magazine Komputery i Biuo, circa 1995, and is covered in a 2009 article from CD Projekt's gram.pl. -Thibbs (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here is an interview with David P. Gray that gives coverage of this game [1] There is a variable amount of coverage in each of these four books. [2] [3] [4] [5] There should be more than enough in these to deal with any questions of verifiability, and anything left such as general hardware/software requirements, etc. can be sourced to the game's own documentation. There is also brief mention of the game in the Wolfenstein 3D / Spear of Destiny FAQ [6] which also should be briefly mentioned in the article.
I would also suggest someone with the time check the back issues of CD-ROM Today for more coverage as I'm fairly certain the game was given coverage in that magazine and distributed on the included CD-ROM disc.
Note that the Websters quotations book mentioned by Sabre above should not be used as a reference for this article as it contains material reprinted from Wikipedia and if it were used would amount to an Ouroboros.
While I saw this article cross the WP:VG article alerts system, I originally wasn't going to !vote here due to who the nom is but at the present time, there is now little reason for me not to present additional information that may be of use to others who are working to improving the article.
--Tothwolf (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Looks like there are plenty of print sources that establish notability here. MuZemike 00:37, 9 November 2009 (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.