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. Article is now notable. Non-Admin Closure. RyRy5 (talk) 03:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xena: Warrior Princess: The Talisman of Fate[edit]

Unnotable video game. Notability of the series does not convey to the game. Collectonian (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 18:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has no sources (I'm adding them now), but the game suffered a scathing review from GameSpot here and IGN here. It's a notable game. Gazimoff (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IGN gave it 7.4, that doesn't seem that scathing... Don't you know the rules? We only allow bad games that no one has ever heard of and that have a cult following of emos. Sheesh, n00b. :) +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For game "journalism" anything below 8.0 is practically TERRIBLE. See This puppy for some proof. :) Protonk (talk) 03:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What does that make Notepad then? Whoo, scary, I'll load up a nice game of MS Paint... +Hexagon1 ^(t) 04:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GameSpot + IGN reviews = notable. Someone another 03:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does it? It seems like they review pretty much any game released in the US, or near abouts. Are such reviews enough to make it notable enough for a standalone article? Collectonian (talk) 04:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Scratches head* I don't get it. They're multiple, in-depth, reliable, and the game is the subject of the reviews. That's all that notability asks for. In terms of practical use, they can be used to cite a gameplay section and will cover the reception in the usual areas: gameplay, graphics and sound. That leaves an article which is more than a statement of existence and gives feedback on the subject. You're the second person recently who's questioned those two sites' output, and I don't get that either. They provide good sources which are vital to build articles with, so that's a good thing isn't it? If basic notability isn't the issue then how are we weighing the validity of the article? By popularity? Age? It's also worth noting that those two sites specialize in what are sometimes known as 'hardcore games', IE the multi-million dollar productions for consoles and PC. Their coverage of casual games is so irregular it's more of an anomaly and in terms of freeware etc. non-existent, sources have to come from elsewhere. That's for argument's sake - there's a GamePro review, Nintendojo review and misc. news items on Gamestats as well. Firing up GameStats or Metacritic often brings up several sources for modern console games and high-budget PC titles. Someone another 04:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gamespot and IGN reviewing a game is much like TV Guide listing the summary of an episode. Might be sourcable for the article and kept help built it, but as they pretty much do it for all that exist, it doesn't really add to notability anymore. Collectonian (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both GameSpot and IGN satisfy criteria for reliable sources per WP:N and WP:V. Gazimoff (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An episode synopsis on TVGuide bears no resemblance to a GameSpot review. One is a few sentences and the other is several paragraphs. The synopsis is offering nothing more than a basic plot outline whereas the review has a reviewer actually playing the game and offering feedback on their experience. GameSpot and IGN do cover every game that you would expect to read about in a game magazine, being covered in both almost guarantees that further sources are available. The quantity of reviews posted reflects what is expected of them - games cost £30-£50 (or equivalent). Players need information before they invest in an expensive piece of plastic, a commitment not comparable with switching channels. That's an aside, combined they adhere to the letter and spirit of notability. Dismissing the sites because they do their jobs doesn't help build a better encyclopedia. Someone another 02:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The game itself might be rather mediocre but the available references take it over the hump of notability. So Awesome (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add sources mentioned in this AfD. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reliable sources mentioned above and notability of the series in general. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as the subject matter has reliable sources and satisfies WP:V and WP:N. Your TV Guide analogy is horribly wrong, and I hope this doesn't lead to more clearly notable video games being nominated for deletion. Until then I will assume this first AFD was an honest mistake. SashaNein (talk) 00:16, 22 April 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.