Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hobbit (pinball)

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. Stifle (talk) 12:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Hobbit (pinball)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article has no Reliable Sources per WP:RS. Ref #1 is a brief mention at https://pinside.com. Ref #2 is the rulesheet for the game at the same website. Ref #3 is the rulesheet at http://tiltforums.com. The four external links all go to https://ipdb.org, the Internet Pinball Database, in different editions. None of these establish Notability per WP:N. Google search finds less than 90 hits, basically all unusable. No current pinball textbook mentions The Hobbit and there are no usable reviews. A PROD was tried and immediately removed so here we are. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[1] is, AFAIK, a reliable source. This [2] also appears reliable, but the review is very short. [3] is pretty much a blog, but looks like it is a fairly definitive site in the field. [4] looks fine. There appear to be a few more, none of which look amazing. ~~weak keep~~ the IGN source looks fine, the rest are shaky, but probably get us to "multiple" per WP:N. Hobit (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm now at a straight up keep. We've got WP:N met IMO. Hobit (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:N includes references and has been further cited since originally marked for deletion. Admittedly still in stub status but more to be developed and part of a large recognizable media franchise. Expandinglight5 (talk) 06:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 01:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Added a further reference from an established publisher. Passes WP:GNG based on WP:SIGCOV in multiple independent reliable sources. FOARP (talk) 08:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ The references provided do not establish notability, the new reference provided by FOARP is a passing reference and does not represent significant coverage. Polyamorph (talk) 08:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's two or more paras worth of coverage. Remember the only thing that WP:SIGCOV requires is that the source "addresses the topic directly and in detail". In this case the source tells us the sales price, the development history, the developer, the company they belong to etc. which are all clear details about the product that it addresses directly. FOARP (talk) 09:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two very short paragraphs, I do not see how this establishes notability. Polyamorph (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I count 200+ words, and the book returns to the topic on the following page (albeit this cannot be seen in the preview). Additionally there are the other RS sources now cited in the article (see WP:GAMESOURCES). FOARP (talk) 10:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the book source, I agree with FOARP that it counts as SIGCOV, as it discusses the development history of the machine. Mlb96 (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly have higher standards. Polyamorph (talk) 06:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but the standard is "addresses the topic directly and in detail". I've enumerated above why I think it does this. In what way, in your view, does it not do this? FOARP (talk) 10:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To me it just reads quite casual. But it is a reliable source. Polyamorph (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you are coming from. It's more than "in passing" IMO, but not a lot more. Taken with everything else, I think we're past the WP:N bar, but YMMV. Hobit (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right, it does represent a little more than in passing, that assessment of mine was too harsh. I am still not convinced on the notability. But I'm striking my !vote as the references taken as a whole probably do represent significant coverage. Polyamorph (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2021 (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.