Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space Dreams

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 redirect all to Action 52. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Space Dreams[edit]

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

No evidence of notability of the original game; only sources duplicate information already in Action 52; reads like a game guide. RJaguar3 | u | t 17:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also Action 52 games whose articles have the same issues:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 00:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 00:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge or redirect all to Action 52 They are all baasically guides and are not notable outside of Action 52, why is there a need to even create articles for each? 112.203.167.185 (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

change to Redirect. I am the same as the one who did the vote above, but in a different computer. After seeing carefully it's better to just have them redirect to Action 52. The other games could also have a redirect created. 121.96.133.118 (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What parts would you merge into Action 52? It's not like any of the in-game stuff is actually notable or sourced. RJaguar3 | u | t 23:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - viable search term; no notability beyond the compilation itself. Marasmusine (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all of them to the compilation page; it is the obvious choice. Do not delete history as some material may be suitable for a merger. Pcap ping 03:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this game not considered notable? It is a completely separate and playable game from the other games on the Action 52 cartridge. Would any given Atari game, for example, not be considered notable and simply redirected to an Atari page? This game is a self-contained work and could easily have existed as a stand-alone game. Though part of a compliation of games, it is a game in its own right and thus should have its existence catalogued. A simple redirect to the Action 52 page seems inappropriate since the Action 52 page only lists the games on the cartridge; it does not say anything much about those games, and some games it only names with no information at all. Since each game on the cartridge is unique and is a separate game and since information is not actually included about most of the games on the actual Action 52 page, it makes sense to have the specific games have their own entries. If Space Dreams were mentioned to someone and they wished to know more about it, a redirect would leave them no better off than giving them the fact that the game was part of Action 52, which is something they probably already knew if they were looking it up. Sources are given, and more could be put in if necessary. The "in-game stuff" is notable for the reason that it actually describes what this game is, not just the fact it exists. This game is obviously not as notable as something like the theory of evolution, but it is not so trivial as to be denied some form of description.Dpysnik talk 15:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't about whether you think it's important or not, it's about whether it has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. See WP:N. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:23, 17 February 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.