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 merge to Xevious. Tone 14:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xevios[edit]

Xevios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

I can't find references to cover WP:GNG; given that it's a bootleg copy of a game, that's rather unlikely. There are things on arcade history websites, but since they list every game, bootleg and variant ever made it's not really evidence of importance. Ironholds (talk) 12:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NN. It is a very obscure topic only die-hard fans would search for. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 12:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I had one of these boards in the 80's. Presumably there are others in existence. This makes it a potential collectible. And should rare items be excluded from Wikiepedia just because they are rare? AND, yhey may be few and far between, but they do exist in virtual form, so there is a potential on-going life of this game through things like MAME. However, if you insist on applying WP:NN or WP:GNG, then should this instead be noted in the Xevious main page in a section called boot-legs or copies or something similar? Or is this too insignificant to be mentioned even there? Pioneer2056 —Preceding undated comment added 12:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

It might be worthy, but probably only as a note that bootlegs were made, such as... and so on. Ironholds (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: few or no third-party reliable sources. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Xevious. It might be able to fit over there. –MuZemike 17:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Xevious. Its notability if any derives from Xevious. -Thibbs (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Xevious - not notable enough to stand on its own. --Teancum (talk) 18:57, 7 January 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.