Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wing Nuts: Battle in the Sky

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2018 April 24.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 to Rocket Science Games#List of games made by Rocket Science. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wing Nuts: Battle in the Sky[edit]

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

Fails WP:NVG. This article was previously redirected to Rocket Science Games#List of games made by Rocket Science by Czar, but then the creator undid the redirection. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 15:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any contest here that the article lacks sources, citing only a single review. Unless there is proof that it was reviewed in more sources, we don't have the material with which to write an article and redirection remains the best option. czar 17:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The cited review, which is available on archive.org in their magazine archive, is very short. The only other mention I was able to find is this one from Wired.com, which is a trivial mention. I don't think there was much in the way of coverage for this title. It's entirely possible that there are some reviews from prominent gaming magazines that haven't been digitally archived yet, but it's rare to find a notable game that has such little coverage. I've expanded articles about Commodore 64 and Amiga games, and it was easier than locating sources for this game. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The length of the review is not relevant, since all of Next Generation's reviews, at least from this period, are of the same length. In the same issue you'll find equally short reviews for such notable games as Stonekeep and Capitalism. That said, after this article was brought up for AfD I had a look around to see if I could dig up more sources, and had no luck. I even considered the possibility that the game was never actually released, though a quick search on Ebay disproved that notion.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. This shouldn't have been relisted. Comments without bolded words still count towards consensus. Also the length of the review does matter—if there isn't enough sourced commentary on the game, there is even less to write about it. czar 17:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All reviews, regardless of length, provide the same amount of sourced content: "[notable magazine] said [opinion] about [article subject]." Reviews in Maximum aren't three times as notable as reviews in Electronic Gaming Monthly just because they're three times as long.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Martin IIIa#Review length and notability czar 17:01, 9 December 2016 (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.