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 no consensus. Sandstein 06:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adventure Gamers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No references independent of the subject, fails general notability as well as notability for web sites. The rules for referencing and removing un-referenced material were significantly strengthened since the article's 1st AFD 5 years ago. Andrevan@ 15:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the first AFD "The site's reviews have been quoted on many adventure game box covers". While not the most notable website on the planet, they are at least considered notable enough to be quoted by the people distributing games. Not much has changed since the first AFD which netted a keep and provided some good rationale. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —RJH (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe these box cover references used in the article (several links to MobyGames scans of indie adventure game covers) do not work for the following reasons: 1) They are self-published and self-distributed by the game developers themselves and therefore lack the reliability required, 2) More importantly, the references themselves are trivial and do not provide context or information about the subject. 3) Finally, MobyGames itself is not a reliable source - it's a user-contributed database, so the references there are unusuable. Quoting: ...self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database, Cracked.com, CBDB.com, and so forth Actually, quite a lot has changed since 2006 regarding the enforcement of the verifiability policies. Andrevan@ 04:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability does not expire. In addition, the last AfD had additional references that need to be added:[1], [2], [3], and some hard copy reviews:
- Article on adventuregamers in PC Master, a Greek gaming magazine. (August 2002)
- Featured in the TV program GameQuest on the Dutch channel Veronica. (December 2000)
- Featured in "Webtips: De 1019 Beste Websites Verzameld" (2000, Issue #1) among large commercial sites such as GameCenter and PC Gameworld.
- Screenshot of Adventure Gamer featured in "English Quest 2", an Australian secondary school textbook. The site is used as an example to encourage students to think about the construction of effective web pages. (September 2000, John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd., tentative print run 20000 copies)
- Listed in the bibliography of "Ecrire Pour Le Jeu: Techniques Scenaristiques Du Jeu Informatique Et Vidéo" by Emmanuel Gardiola, (June 2000, Editions DIXIT)

Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a copious amount of references, which would certainly meet the WP:WEB requirements. However, they are not currently used in the article, and I am unable to obtain the full text of any of these international references. Are you? Also, I think those web links are a lot tougher to defend on a reliability basis, don't you? Andrevan@ 04:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found the following at Google Books. I am not putting these forth as material for our general notability guideline, as they are not significant coverage of AG. However, they are instances of published books citing the AG website. Is this comparable to the importance of a scientific paper being judged on the number of other papers that cite it? If so, how many would be enough for notability? [4][5][6]. The web links summarized by Turlo above I do not consider to be reliable secondary sources. The journals could do with further investigation. At the very least, AG should be mentioned somewhere in this encyclopedia even if its not a standalone article. Marasmusine (talk) 10:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I get uneasy when the first reference provided to establish notability in a thread turns out to be an article from the original site [7]. Then when I don't easily find chat such as blogs or forums ie non-RS, I am left wondering if this is an inappropriate website for a wikipedia page or just difficult to source? It is my hope that it is the latter.Tetron76 (talk) 12:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Lear's Fool 15:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - it has been referred to and mentioned in various sources, but I think it doubtful that they add up to significant coverage in reliable sources. However, I can't say I've seen all the offline sources, so I can't say for sure there isn't enough there. Robofish (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I can't endorse the use of the paper references listed above until it is explained how significant they are. Too many times I've seen coverage described as "featured" when it's actually just one paragraph, or just a screenshot, or slapped on a coverdisk. The number of times the site itself has been cited is compelling though, so no prejudice against recreation should significant coverage be established. Marasmusine (talk) 08:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Turlo, who wrote a Keep opinion above, has left Wikipedia and probably will not be responding to this AFD. Andrevan@ 09:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Tetron76's web links don't look useful but his offline sources by their description look like "significant coverage". Since I, like the nom, can't read them I'll concede that they may not be. However, for the time being I'm going to go with "when in doubt, don't delete". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean Turlo, not Tetron76. Per WP:BURDEN I don't think this is the proper reasoning. Andrevan@ 01:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I got them mixed up. As far as WP:BURDEN goes, that really addresses what goes in the article more so then whether or not the article should exist. It's the responsibility of the editor who wants to put something "in" an article to provide a source for it per WP:BURDEN. However, when we are talking about whether or not an article should exist, that's covered by another kind of source which may or may not be currently used in the article. That's where WP:BEFORE comes in. An editor who wants to nominate an article for deletion should first make sure that such sources don't exist. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to verify that any of the sources referenced by Turlo above actually exist. And if they do, perhaps the coverage is not a "feature" but merely a trivial mention. Although you're right that BURDEN doesn't mention deletion, BEFORE doesn't say what to do if we've tried to find reliable sources and failed. At what point do we say, if the sources become available, we can restore the article? Andrevan@ 03:03, 28 April 2011 (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.