Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Burnout: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:18, 10 June 2017

Super Burnout

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

Contested WP: PROD. No reason was provided by the contesting editor, so I'll just copy-and-paste my rationale from the prod: Fails to meet WP: NGAMES. The article gives no indication of importance, and of the four cited sources, two are simple database information from the same fan site, and two are fan discussion forums. Martin IIIa (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: MobyGames lists 12 reviews for this game including ones from reliable sources such as GamePro and Electronic Gaming Monthly: [1] --Mika1h (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mika1h. Newimpartial (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of the review publications listed at MobyGames qualify as notable/reliable sources; of that list of 12, I count only five that could be added to the article, and that's assuming all the reviews actually exist (MobyGames uses user-generated content). Moreover, as I've said before at AfD, 1990s GamePro reviews don't help establish notability, since at that time GamePro reviewed every single game that was released in North America. Finally, to back away for a moment from the tallying of reviews, Super Burnout is one of the most obscure games on one of the most obscure consoles ever released. It was released in minuscule quantities, got a few mediocre reviews, and disappeared without being noticed by anyone outside the hardcore gaming community. It seems a poor basis for an article.--Martin IIIa (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'd contest the idea that this game is entirely unnotable; I'm currently doing an article for E3 1995, and several contemporary outlets reported on it at the time. Additionally, the existence of print media discussing this game, even if not immediately available, means this article is very likely notable and merely lacking proper citations. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Atari Jaguar games as useful search term. I'd only "keep" this if someone has actual proof of sourcing, as right now it has none. Martin's right on MobyGames—most of those 12 are unreliable sources. If the GamePro review is a few sentences and the other sources (EGM, Video Games, Game Players) are only in physical magazine archives, we have no content with which to write an article and cannot fulfill WP:V. Mentions in passing in E3 1995 write-ups has the same issue. Show some actual sourcing and I'd be happy to change my mind, but faith that the content surely must exist somewhere is an argument to avoid. czar 22:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 ::Not all of the review publications listed at MobyGames qualify as notable/reliable sources; of that list of 12, I count only five that could be added to the article, and that's assuming all the reviews actually exist (MobyGames uses user-generated content). Moreover, as I've said before at AfD, 1990s ''GamePro'' reviews don't help establish notability, since at that time ''GamePro'' reviewed every single game that was released in North America. Finally, to back away for a moment from the tallying of reviews, Super Burnout is one of the most obscure games on one of the most obscure consoles ever released. It was released in minuscule quantities, got a few mediocre reviews, and disappeared without being noticed by anyone outside the hardcore gaming community. It seems a poor basis for an article.--[[User:Martin IIIa|Martin IIIa]] ([[User talk:Martin IIIa|talk]]) 17:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''': I'd contest the idea that this game is entirely unnotable; I'm currently doing an article for E3 1995, and several contemporary outlets reported on it at the time. Additionally, the existence of print media discussing this game, even if not immediately available, means this article is very likely notable and merely lacking proper citations. [[User:FlotillaFlotsam|FlotillaFlotsam]] ([[User talk:FlotillaFlotsam|talk]]) 19:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
-* '''Redirect''' to [[List of Atari Jaguar games]] as useful search term. I'd only "keep" this if someone has actual proof of sourcing, as right now it has none. Martin's right on MobyGames. If the GamePro review is a few sentences and the other sources (EGM, Video Games, Game Players) are only in physical magazine archives, we have no content with which to write an article and cannot fulfill [[WP:V]]. Mentions in passing in E3 1995 write-ups has the same issue. Show some actual sourcing and I'd be happy to change my mind, but faith that the content surely must exist somewhere is an [[WP:ATA|argument to avoid]]. <span style="background:#F0F0FF; padding:3px 9px 4px">[[User talk:Czar|<span style='font:bold small-caps 1.2em Avenir;color:#B048B5'>czar</span>]]</span> 22:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
+* '''Redirect''' to [[List of Atari Jaguar games]] as useful search term. I'd only "keep" this if someone has actual proof of sourcing, as right now it has none. Martin's right on MobyGames—most of those 12 are unreliable sources. If the GamePro review is a few sentences and the other sources (EGM, Video Games, Game Players) are only in physical magazine archives, we have no content with which to write an article and cannot fulfill [[WP:V]]. Mentions in passing in E3 1995 write-ups has the same issue. Show some actual sourcing and I'd be happy to change my mind, but faith that the content surely must exist somewhere is an [[WP:ATA|argument to avoid]]. <span style="background:#F0F0FF; padding:3px 9px 4px">[[User talk:Czar|<span style='font:bold small-caps 1.2em Avenir;color:#B048B5'>czar</span>]]</span> 22:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)