Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superball Arcade

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.-Wafulz (talk) 23:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superball Arcade[edit]

Contested speedy. This article is about a non-notable shareware computer game whose only assertion of notability is a "5-star Editor's rating from Download.com". I did find another reveiw by Game Tunnel and there's certainly plenty of Google hits (404 uniques pages out of 28,300 hits), largely from sketchy program download sites. I'm still not convinced of encyclopedic merit, and this is certainly weak on the reliable sources, but this article deserves community discussion. — Scientizzle 16:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notability: This game was released on Big Fish Games, one of the web's largest private downloadable game sites. It is still available on www.bigfishgames.de. The game designer, after completion of this project then became the Game Lead on the Webkinz project. Jellytot77 (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The game was also considered one of the "Top five time wasters on the Internet" by game columnist Marc Saltzman. Unfortunately, this article is no longer online. - Jellytot77 (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: Games are great (for the most part), but not every game is notable. This game, unfortunately, is one of the non-notable due to its lack of reviews, news articles, or other types of independent coverage from reliable information sources. Sidatio (talk) 04:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand why "lack of review or news articles" makes an article non-notable. Wikipedia is FULL of references to obscure games with lack of reviews or news articles. For example, I just downloaded Begin (computer game) last week from the Star Trek video games list, an old game with only a few existing articles written on the game. I can't stop playing it, and would never have found this gem if it was not listed on Wikipedia. What makes a game notable is how special it is in the hearts of the players, which I feel this game gives it it's "notability". - Jellytot77 (talk) 05:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of reliable secondary coverage (IE quality reviews when it's a video game) means that an article doesn't pass the notability guideline, and is therefore non-notable, notability isn't just a term it's a set of criteria. An encyclopedia article aims for broad coverage, in videogames that means what gameplay involves, how reviewers found the game and if at all possible some details about how the game was developed, as well as any other facets which may be present. Without these extra details 'articles' are just repeats of documentation that's already available. You will see plenty of articles which suffer the same problem, registered users are free to make articles as they see fit, hence why there are more than 2 million of them. They can't all be patrolled all the time, so articles which are not suitable stay around until they are dealt with. Before creating an article, every contributor is warned Articles that do not cite reliable published sources are likely to be deleted., sources should be found before an article is started rather than after the event. Someone another (talk) 06:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 05:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The Marc Saltzman article is here, hardly a massive lump of text to take a lot from, it is direct coverage. Game Tunnel is A-ok for casual/indie game reviews, and that review's a good source (if there was another like that this would be a standard keep). There is also a top 5 Arkanoid clones piece for whatever year [here] from the same site, providing some additional data. Add to that Download.com's editor comment [here] there is at least some article building blocks, reception information and different sites to slot into the references. Just wish there was another nice fat review. Someone another (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are now cited in the article, they could be used to expand gameplay a little further and considerably increase the reception section too. Some more opinions would be useful. Someone another (talk) 11:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good finds, Someone! I don't know if this article will ever be improved any more than it is with what sources are out there, but it seems to be just enough. It's a weak keep, and I agree - it'd be nice to have one or two more devoted reviews from reliable sources. Until then, though, it seems you've found just enough to keep this one on life support. Sidatio (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've got to be good for something ;) I also found this on a blog called Windows Fanatics, which seems quite well rooted. Nothing else is coming up unfortunately. Someone another (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on a minute.. the site is called LockerGnome, run by this guy and the post is by him too! COME ON, who's the daddy? :D Someone another (talk) 03:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am convinced by the above that this article is not an obvious case for deletion and deserves some time. Recently read this essay on it, which quite accurately describes my stance in this deletion debate.User:Krator (t c) 17:08, 8 January 2008 (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.