Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Adventures of Fatman

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 No consensus. Cbrown1023 02:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Fatman[edit]

Does not contain references to support claim of notability. Appears to fail WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell talk 01:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Original closing statement seems to be closing this out of order:
The result was Speedy delete, spam at worst, no assertion of notability at best. Guy (Help!) 00:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Seems somewhat notable plenty of sources and awards.--M8v2 01:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many (if not all) of the sources recently added seem not to meet WP:EL. Andre (talk) 02:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Such as? That vague and unspecific comment is blatantly untrue. Which ones fail what rules? From WP:EL: "What should be linked to? 4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." and none of the sites I linked to fail any of "Links normally to be avoided" list. You claim that there are lack of references applies to your own comment! --Amaccormack 16:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • 11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. Andre (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • And which of the references is a personal page or blog? You're still not answering the question. Why? BECAUSE NONE OF THEM ARE! --Amaccormack 19:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well I was mainly referring to the websites like Mr. Bill's Adventureland, amateurish fan pages. I guess a personal page is slightly different from a fansite, although I think it's fairly applicable. However, what I really should have pointed out was WP:RS#Self-published sources as secondary sources. Andre (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • OK, I've removed Mr Bill's. Any others? Because you did say "most, if not all". You still haven't backed that claim up. --Amaccormack 22:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well, I might make a similar claim of basically all the links (except O'Reilly and HOTU), which are hardly authoritative or well-known, seem like glorified versions of Mr. Bill, and O'Reilly appears to be a trivial reference at best. Andre (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Just Adventure and AdventureGamers I have described below (see comment starting "Lower standards?" and proved their own notability. Did you actually look at the sites before you said that they are glorified versions of Mr Bill? Perhaps you should tell that to all the adventure game companies who keep sending them review copied of all their games... --Amaccormack 15:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spammy article about game whose claims to fame are 1) won independent adventure game of the year award from a review website that has 2 writers and an editor[1] 2) won a couple of lesser awards in a contest that is based on voting from an online forum on the website of the company which makes the obscure create-your-own-adventure-game software that the Game uses.[2]. Bwithh 06:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per User:Bwithh--C.lettinga 06:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, my gut tells me this article should be deleted, however this article does in my opinion meet WP:SOFTWARE. My personal tipping point was that at least one of the websites that reviewed this game is itself notable (Adventure Gamers), and the content of that page is a non-trivial discussion of this game. Vicarious 07:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GameTunnel, Adventure Gamers and Just Adventure all seem like perfectly acceptable critique of the game. It isn't WP's fault or problem that the indie/freeware developing community doesn't receive critical review in printed sources or the major gamesites, it's up to the indie community to club together and generate websites that can do that. On the other hand, when that is accomplished when will WP stop rejecting review sites because they're not Gamespot? The adventure genre is not widely covered by the published gaming press, this includes 'proper' games sold through stores, not just web-distributed ones. That's resulted in a far stronger online presence from smaller sites reviewing these titles, some of which are featured in this article. Whilst I don't accept AGS awards as being sign of anything in terms of articles belonging to WP, honest reviews are another matter. QuagmireDog 08:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further to that, in my eyes this is a clear pass of WP:SOFTWARE, which is not policy but certainly makes a good start. The sources seem perfectly reliable which passes WP:V. QuagmireDog 12:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find any references to print articles on the AGSwiki page linked. The AdventureGamers website is not obviously a significant source. Getting a passing mention in an O'Reilly Book as an example of an AGS game doesn't prove much. Roger Ebert has won a Pulitzer Prize for his review work and is the first film critic to have been awarded a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, and has his work published in 200+ newspapers. If the people behind DIYGames can claim a relatively comparable level of recognition, that would make up for their being few in number Bwithh 13:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took a look at the corrected media link that Amaccormack sent me. My opinion of AGS is not that it may not be very obscure, but its is still peripheral to games culture. Bwithh 19:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn webgame. Web content is not subject to lower standards of notability, even if "It isn't WP's fault or problem that the indie/freeware developing community doesn't receive critical review in printed sources or the major gamesites". Deizio talk 14:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lower standards? No less than 8 rival adventure sites have reviewed it! WP+SOFTWARE does not state that the non-trivial need to be in print. Since anyone can make a print-on-demand book via BookSurge these days, the printing doesn't really add very much in notability IMHO. Just Adventure, one of the reviewing sites has been described by USA Today as "an editorially rich destination for adventure gamers on the Web. It prides itself on pulling no punches and digging for scoops." PC Player touted Just Adventure as "the ideal meeting place for adventurers old and new." JA have been quoted on box covers, in magazine advertisements, and in newspapers. Adventure Gamers built a solid, dedicated readership over 7+ years, owing to its reputation for high editorial standards. The website has been quoted in magazines and on box covers, has been cited in game-related books and appeared on television several times. Adventure Gamers has over 20,000 unique visitors every day. gametunnel.com have been on G4TV in February 2006, September 2005 and January 2005. etc. etc. if you care to look. Please, if you are going to deny the validity of the references in the article, please specifically denounce each one, with evidence, until there are less than 2 left and the article then fails WP:SOFTWARE. --Amaccormack 16:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bwithh. Mus Musculus 16:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, commercially-released indie games are rare, and this one was reviewed on HOTU, which is one of the major game sites and only rarely covers indie. (Radiant) 17:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually this isn't true, HOTU covers many indie games. Andre (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I should have worded that better. My point is that most indie games are not, and will never be, on HOTU, because Sarinee only adds good games (per the site charter). Thus, I would say that any indie game covered on HOTU is notable for that, moreso if it earned a Top Dog rank. (Radiant) 17:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Anomo 22:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I cannot find any evidence that the awards are in any way significant, or that the coverage is in media considered authoritative in any way. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, you didn't look very hard then. Four fat chicks, Quandryland, Adventuregamers and Just Adventure ALL feature as respected critics in metacritic and gamerankings, sites run by CNet. If that;s not enough for you, then nothing ever will be. For example, see the Sam and Max reviews here and here. With the HOTU review and this evidence, anyone who denies these links as evidence of notability is just burying the head in the sand and needs to go and re-read WP:SOFTWARE —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amaccormack (talk • contribs) 22:20, 17 December 2006 (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/The_Adventures_of_Fatman&oldid=1142608534"