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 17:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ruiner Pinball

[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP: NGAMES. The subject is a pinball simulator for an obscure gaming console and, so far as I have been able to determine, was insignificant even in the context of that console's library of exclusive games. There are three sources in the article, but none of them establish notability. Specifically: The first one is just the instruction manual. The second... I can't read the language, but skimming over the article, it looks like Ruiner Pinball is only mentioned in a simple list of games coming out for the Atari Jaguar. The third is a review in Next Generation, which is useful, but since Next Generation reviewed every single game that was released in North America at the time (and many that weren't!), it does little to show notability. Martin IIIa (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Added ~~two~~ four more reviews and a meta score for now. --Tochni (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Video Game Critic is considered an unreliable source, since the site is by a lone author with no editorial oversight. GamePro, like Next Generation, reviewed virtually every game released at the time, and having a copy of the actual issue in which Ruiner Pinball is reviewed, I can confirm they only gave it one of their "Quick Hits" reviews consisting of three sentences or less. Atari HQ runs into a similar problem; an Atari game being reviewed on an Atari fan site is hardly a sign of it being notable. As seen here, Atari HQ has reviews of nearly every Atari Jaguar game.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about Electric Playground and the other reviews at mobygames? --Tochni (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See our list of vetted sources. Also we need to verify that those reviews actually exist instead of using the aggregator... czar 03:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Belated response here, but I feel I should emphasize that my opinion that this article should be deleted isn't just motivated by lack of sourcing. My belief is that for every article on Wikipedia, we should have an answer to the question, "What makes this important?" (I realize this is not a popular belief, but I do think it is in keeping with Wikipedia policy.) With Ruiner Pinball I just don't see any possible answer to that question.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is the Latoya Jackson of video pinball games so it should be important. It may not important for you but the article may important for others for example for me especially since I am very dedicated in Pinball related Wikipedia articles. --Tochni (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about importance to individuals, essentially "I like this game" vs. "I don't like this game". I'm talking about importance in the larger sense laid out in WP: Notability, and more specifically WP: NGAMES, which is what counts for keeping or not keeping an article.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The scant material in the article needs TNT, but here's the deal. We have a review in Next Gen, and Mobygames lists reviews in Electric Playground, GamePro, and VG&CE (all vetted review sites). Four reviews in major publications is sufficient for notability, but only if anyone actually pulls the publications and can show that the reviews exist (we can't trust Mobygames's user-submitted content). To Martin's statement, with which I tend to agree, I'd put this game on par at least with the shovelware of today, which gets reviews but is ultimately fated for obscurity. We tend to keep these topics if only to be the only source on the Internet that provides a bibliography for games of even small notability. I think Wikipedia will focus less on these in time and focus more on good writing than simply bibliographies, but right now it's the only Internet site in the game. czar 19:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Though it obviously doesn't help my case for deletion, in the interest of being completely honest I must say that I have a copy of the GamePro issue in which Ruiner Pinball is reviewed, so that one at least does exist.--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2016 (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.