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 The "keep" opinions are discounted as unconvincing because (like the article) they do not cite any actual sources, but only assert that sources exist, which is not sufficient in the light of WP:BURDEN.  Sandstein  10:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hunt-the-pixel[edit]

Hunt-the-pixel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

No reliable sources found for this term — only mentions are on forums and other unreliable venues. Examples are completely arbitrary. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. Please allow me to respectfully disagree. I am afraid your opinion was misformed by google, which indeed throws a lot of garbage unto you, so that you have to "pixel-hunt" the reliable info :-) (or, if you like, needle in a haystack). At the same time Google Books do show hits for reasonably reliable sources, also here, therefore I conclude the article is salvageable. Kaligelos (talk) 02:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where? Your Google Books search shows only false positives. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've made the common Google Books mistake of thinking that a search URL is a citation of a book. It isn't. Cite the actual books. Uncle G (talk) 10:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you would share your metaphorical needle with us? Or more importantly, incorporate that into the article. I'm afraid your interpretation of "salvageable" may not necessarily correspond to Wikipedia notability guidelines. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a famous term in computer gaming. I did find real mentions in the Google Books search that User:Kaligelos provided. JIP | Talk 06:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So add them. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 06:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are indeed "mention" that do not discuss the term in more than a sentence. This is not enough for a whole article. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm personally familiar with the term, but at the moment the article is a one-line dictionary definition followed up with five paragraphs of OR. Even if more info can be brought together, then it still feels like it would be more appropriate as a paragraph in a game design article. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 08:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Week Keep - I was wondering how to prove notability, and I am thinking that Wikipedia:Notability (memes) is the best category to use as a basis. There are thousands of website hits using this term - and most are related to game reviews, etc. The problem is, those are blocked at work. I know the term is used widely in video game reviews, but the article is poorly written, and does have OR in it. However, I strongly believe a new article could be written that is properly sourced - I am just unable to add those sources at this time. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that a closer look would reveal some usable info, but I am weary that this would not be sufficient for anything past several sentences. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't see this turning into an article with the sources available. I have seen tons of passing mentions and uses of the term, but not something that addresses the term itself. The pass-by mentions of the term would suffice for 2-3 sentences. This is not a stand-alone material topic. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:43, 28 December 2010 (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) 20:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, perfer merge if someone can find a home Sources seem weak, but the term is common enough that it is showing up in a current news search [1]. Is this a WP:DICDEF? Maybe so, but I think there is enough there for a short article though a merge to an appropriate article would be best unless someone can turn up some better sources. Hobit (talk) 04:41, 29 December 2010 (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.