Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V-Tetris
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 Keep (non-admin closure), as per the affirmative consensus in this discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- V-Tetris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Unnotable video game. Failed PROD (removed by article creator). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep I don't feel notability criteria for video games has been well-established, so it is hard to judge. While I recognize that notability is not inherited, my gut feeling is that an officially licensed game for a highly notable game platform is inherently notable. Maybe. :) --Jaysweet (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, generally games are assumed notable because there's a specialist press devoted to covering releases from major publishers, no matter how minor, so pretty much every game passes WP:GNG with flying colors if someone can be arsed to source them. The fact that they aren't sourced is more of a WP:SOFIXIT issue than a WP:N one. That said, anyone who makes a half-decent case that a game wasn't covered by the specialist press can get an article deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- GNG notes specifically that directory listings don't count. Every video game ever released a not received "significant" coverage, not even from the specialist pubs. So no, it isn't an issue of "so fix it", its an issue of the need to actually prove this claimed coverage exists. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not talking about directory listings. I'm talking about reviews and previews. As to the specific, I cannot prove that reviews exist for this specific game, as I do not speak Japanese nor do I have access to back issues of Japanese game magazines. It was, however, one of the early releases from before the press backlash against the Virtual Boy and launched at a time that Nintendo was promoting the hell out of the VB and all its games.
This article is trivially easily improved by a rare person. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- AMiB, I think we are pretty much saying the same thing. I made the qualifications of "officially licenses" and "notable platform" because I think the assumptions regarding the "specialist press" fall apart without those criteria. Certainly, some non-licensed games are notable (e.g. Bible Adventures) but many are probably not. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not talking about directory listings. I'm talking about reviews and previews. As to the specific, I cannot prove that reviews exist for this specific game, as I do not speak Japanese nor do I have access to back issues of Japanese game magazines. It was, however, one of the early releases from before the press backlash against the Virtual Boy and launched at a time that Nintendo was promoting the hell out of the VB and all its games.
- GNG notes specifically that directory listings don't count. Every video game ever released a not received "significant" coverage, not even from the specialist pubs. So no, it isn't an issue of "so fix it", its an issue of the need to actually prove this claimed coverage exists. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, generally games are assumed notable because there's a specialist press devoted to covering releases from major publishers, no matter how minor, so pretty much every game passes WP:GNG with flying colors if someone can be arsed to source them. The fact that they aren't sourced is more of a WP:SOFIXIT issue than a WP:N one. That said, anyone who makes a half-decent case that a game wasn't covered by the specialist press can get an article deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Nifboy (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Tetris variants along with the hundreds of other Tetris games out there. MuZemike (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, inherently notable. Andre (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? -- saberwyn 02:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Commercial video games have a specialist press covering pretty much anything and everything that comes out. Sources will likely not be quickly forthcoming for this game (as it is a 13-year-old game released only in Japan), but I am reasonably sure they exist. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Same as Jaysweet I don't feel video games notability has been established, which means this should not have been set for AfD. Yama88 (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Week Keep I share the same sentiment as AMIB.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Tetris variants as suggested by MuZemike. I don't think it does meet the requirement of WP:N, but then, I think it would fit peachily in with the list. --Izno (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The virtual boy only had a small number of games released for it. The uniqueness of the console makes every game released for it notable.--SquareOuroboros (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2008 (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.
