Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced Xoru

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 requisite quality of sources to sustain notability is not there. bd2412 T 03:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Advanced Xoru

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find video game sources: "Advanced Xoru" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had only passing mentions and no meaningful hits in Google Books and video game reliable sources custom Google searches. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 18:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 18:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: I'm going to have to argue that it has sufficient coverage from reliable sources - sources are not required to already be listed on WP:VG/RS. Of the sources removed in recent edits, only one (Home of the Underdogs) is currently classed as unreliable on WP:VG/S#Unreliable sources, and looking back the discussion on that classification was astonishingly weak. --tronvillain (talk)19:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the sources have any reputation for editorial quality (whether by policy, outside reputation, or editor pedigree)? And then which of those sources cover the topic in any depth beyond a passing mention? That is how we determine significant coverage on Wikipedia. We don't need a discussion on "My Abandonware" to determine that has no editorial basis for reliability. The article is sourced entirely to passing mentions and hobbyist periodicals. czar 19:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What constitutes a reliable source for a claim is context dependent - the bar for what constitutes a reliable source for an opinion like a review of a video game is not the same as that for a historical or scientific fact or the even higher bar required for a medical claim. Nothing about either Red Herring or Syntax Adventure Magazine obviously says unreliable in the context of video games (or PABSCO BBS Magazine in the context of BBS doors), and to unilaterally declare them such seems like a waste of a substantial amount of potential coverage on public domain software and shareware. If they hadn't covered the game, I might have been tempted to put the thirteen year old stub up for deletion myself when I stumbled across it... but fortunately for us they did. --tronvillain (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to seeing others support your claims that Red Herring and Syntax Adventure Magazine are reliable for statements of fact, having none of the qualities of editorial reliability I described above. czar 16:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A game doesn't need to have its sources come from WP:VG/RS and other typically reliable outlets, but if it has none at all then you have to think that other potential sources that did cover the game might be unreliable, such as the two you brought up. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tronvillain and based on sources that he added, although I have been unable to find any more (which speaks only to my own lack of source-finding ability). Agreed that not all reliable sources that can be used will be listed on a WikiProject's reliable sources list, and I dispute the idea that lacking any of the sources on the list makes for a rationale to delete, or even more astonishingly that not using sources from a list makes the other sources unreliable? BOZ (talk) 12:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

based on sources that he added

Which of those sources? czar 16:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 14:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is trying very hard to prove notability, but it just doesn't reach it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources are too weak to show that notability is met. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2018 (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.