Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quest for Al-Qa'eda

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 delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quest for Al-Qa'eda[edit]

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

Unremarkable video game. No claims to significance. Google research shows that source reliability is questionable.

Even if they are taken as reliable, reviews show it as an "exploitation" game and really bad. Though I know the game being bad doesn't justify its deletion. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with Jesse Petrilla: Although I disagree with the nominator that it makes no claim to significance, it is definitely a very small claim at that. There's a Wired article ([1]) that talks about how many downloads it got quickly, and there's a passing mention in The Escapist ([2]), which are both reliable and notable sources, but there's nothing really here that establishes notability for it and it's not the full subject of either article. A couple of other situational sources that are now dead-linked, but it's the focus of none of the articles. I think this could be merged with Jesse Petrilla as well. Also, Quest for Saddam should be added to this nomination as well because it is a similar game and has a similar set of sources. Nomader (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Found another CNN mention ([3]), but again, just in passing. Still keeping my delete !vote. Nomader (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Save: Mr. Guye, just because you think a game is bad or not very remarkable, doesn't mean it didn't exist. Keep in mind this was over 13 years ago, hence why most of the links are dead. It was featured on MSNBC, in multiple magazines, etc, and was downloaded by millions worldwide. The game may not have been great, but it was fun and deserves its spot on Wiki IMO. To merge it with Jesse Petrilla would not make much sense. Martel10732 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Martel! Per our verifiability and notability guidelines, our personal feelings don't matter: it's important to find sources that say the article is important, not what we personally think about it. I think it would be a great Wiki article as well, but unfortunately, we don't have many sources for it outside of passing mentions like I brought up above. Do you have the link to the MSNBC or do you know which magazines it was featured in? If you do know them, we can add them to the article so we can keep it split out. Nomader (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nomander, I can't find the link to the old MSNBC article, but there is an online video of one of the MSNBC interviews about it on YouTube ([4]), also, here is a passing mention of it in an Orange County Register article about another game: ([5]) Martel10732 (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: that helps a lot. I really wish there was something more substantive than a cable news interview... this whole thing is really on the cusp. I still think it'd be better serviced in a section in the Jesse Petrilla page instead of being split out into a stub, but let me search tonight and see if I can find anything else. Nomader (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In trying to find some old articles, I'm just finding a bunch of broken links. After 13 years there isn't much left. If it is decided to be deleted, I recommend merging it with the Quest for Saddam page and making it a section of that rather than Jesse Petrilla since it is the predecessor to Quest for Saddam. Martel10732 (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have those links? If they're from reliable sources, we can use the internet archive [archive.org] to try and see what they were when they first came out. Nomader (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:41, 13 September 2015 (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.