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. The Helpful One 11:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elasto Mania[edit]

WP:V concerns since February, WP:N concerns since July. There doesn't appear to be significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. Web search shows blog/forum chatter, user-submitted reviews and directory entries. Prod contested (at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_December_7). Marasmusine (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was featured in biggest finnish computing magazine mikrobitti in 2000 when it was released. --Kopaka-1 (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC) — Kopaka-1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Can we have some more information on this? Issue/page number and the extent of the coverage (as sometimes I see "featured" actually meaning "briefly mentioned") Marasmusine (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep — the person who originally prodded this article (in which afterwards was restored per the DRV) mentioned coverage in GameSpot UK. That combined with the magazine source mentioned above, I think that meets the bare minimum of the WP:GNG. I'll also mention that the article needs some cleanup to include better referencing, style, etc. so we can possibly avoid another deletion discussion on this. MuZemike (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
here's the GameSpotUK coverage. As you can see, it's completely insufficient for WP:N. User-submitted scores and a download. Marasmusine (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral leaning keep~~ Hang on a sec, you must've missed this 'hands-on' on Eurogamer, apparently they received info and a cart out of the blue, it's getting a DS release. Need to check for more sources. Agreed that being listed on GameSpot is neither use nor ornament, all the major sites are now clogged with empty listings for all manner of non-notable games. Someone another 20:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Other sources aren't happening. So we've got a potential appearance in a Finnish magazine which may or may not be as much use as a chocolate fireguard, and a reliable source having a hands-on experience with a DS cart which suddenly appeared from Russia.. this isn't stacking up to notability. If the game is internationally released on DS then I can see it easily attaining enough sources for us to have an article, but the currently released PC game will have little to do with that, in the meantime it's crystal ballery in terms of whether this actually gets released. Someone another 20:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yeah yeah I know, U-turns R us. Checking google books, which I should have done anyway, reveals two book sources. The first is by Simon Carless and is 3 pages (!) which is useful for a variety of purposes. The second is not many sentences long, but is published by Greenwood Publishing Group (reliable) and contains a lot of info needed for a reception section. Combined with the Eurogamer source I think these push it neatly over the notability hurdle and provide some good information to be integrated. Hopefully more journos will be sent copies of the DS game so the article can be improved with further sources. The Mikrobitti article could possibly be used to expand reception slightly but wouldn't stand as a source with enough information to hang an article on, but thanks for finding the text. It's worth pointing out that WP is all about sources, without which articles don't improve, arguments like the pokemon test don't get around the fact that you can't build something without tools or materials. Someone another 03:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Indeed it is hard to find non-user reviews for shareware games (same goes for free software games), even influential ones. Yes, it has an excellent The Underdogs review (but AFAIK that site is not considered authoritative), and I can point out a good several flash and other games that copied much of the game play (but that would be original research, no?). Still I want to offer a Pokemon-like defense - why Aztec and not this one? It sure feels more notable (and Aztec's article presents no more verifiability in its links). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldar (talk • contribs) 00:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources for Aztec as well as many C64/Amiga/Spectrum ZX games likely exist if you look in, say, the Amiga Magazine Rack. MuZemike (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, I proposed this article for deletion and not Aztec (and tens of thousands of other possible unnotable subjects) because I'm not omnipotent. Marasmusine (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone just posted the mikrobitti article [1]. --Kopaka-1 (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a few more details were provided (page number, issue number and the reviewer if at all possible) I'd be grateful, as it can be given a fuller citation with that info. Using a few translating tools I'm sure there's something which can be wrung from it. Someone another 03:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:cite journal gives you a good idea of what is needed. Marasmusine (talk) 11:46, 18 December 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.