Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emerald Mine

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2018 October 7.
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 delete. The dab / redirect issue can be addressed editorially. Sandstein 12:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emerald Mine

[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)

Unnotable video game series, fails WP:GNG. Lordtobi (✉) 20:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the developer as a likely search term. --Izno (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- May also make sense to add a hatnote pointing at Emerald#Emerald mines. Chris857 (talk) 04:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is another target entirely and I might favor that instead. WP:2DABS is probably applicable either way. --Izno (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kingsoft GmbH or just delete was ~~Comment~~ There is a brief mention about the game in Amiga World December 1994 page 57 talking about gaming on the CD32 and referencing back to Emerald Mine and other Boulder Dash clones.[1]. I vaguely recall reading some reviews of the game back in the day but haven't found anything back to 1987 yet. PaleAqua (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did some more digging, there is a review by Louis Wallace in the December 1988 issue page 74[2]. PaleAqua (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The two sources refer to two different games in the series. There are at least for diferent ones. No game on their own nor the series as a whole appears to be notable if there is just one source each, and each of those sources with just limited information. Lordtobi (✉) 16:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hence the reason I didn't !vote keep. Figure I'll keep looking a little bit more this weekend and then switch my comment into a !vote, currently leaning towards delete/redirect. BTW their are least 5 different ones there was an iOS version in 2011, but only "source"—using the term source extremely loosely here—I found on that one only mentioned that no sources reviewed it.[3] ( Which is a good indication of lack of notability, as likely would have been reviewed for nostalgia otherwise. )(edit: game was unrelated as noted below) Still haven't found the review that I kinda recall, but it might have been for a C64 version. PaleAqua (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The iOS title appears to be unrelated. Since Kingsoft always bought the rights to the games they published, EA owns the rights now; not Les Bird. Lordtobi (✉) 17:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, and having searched more can't find anything else so switching from comment to redirect or delete. Note that Emerald mine was a red link which I boldly redirected to Emerald#Emerald mines. Given that I would suggest Kingsoft as both redirects given WP:DIFFCAPS. PaleAqua (talk) 04:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To developer (publisher really) per Izno. Delete also acceptable, there's nothing much to really say other than note it existed. -- ferret (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2018 (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.