Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1001 Video Games You Must Play Before You Die


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 13:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

1001 Video Games You Must Play Before You Die

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unreferenced article about a book, that does not demonstrate how the book is notable. Specifically, there is no evidence this book meets Wikipedia's standards for notability of books. Searching for reliable sources to demonstrate notability reveals little or nothing of note. Previous Prod was contested, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment – One wonders what percentage of people would die trying to play all 1,0001 games to completion? It's difficult to take a list of games this long seriously. That being said, I suspect the nom. is correct and so I can't support a keep at this time. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.   &oelig; &trade; 22:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - I've found coverage from a number of third party sources:
 * Kotaku
 * Pop Matters
 * The Austin Chronicle
 * GamerTell/Technology Tell
 * 1UP
 * Digitally Downloaded (Unfamiliar with this site, but it's got a staff of 10 or so people, with designated editors for editorial oversight.)
 * Additionally, there are a bunch of other websites/blogs that straddle the line between reliable and non-reliable. If one were to sift through all those, I bet there'd be a few more reliable entries in there. Sergecross73   msg me   23:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - My terms for the benefit of the doubt on my end is that the references listed by Sergecross73 will be implemented. If not, I will endorse the deletion of this article. D arth B otto talk•cont 11:37, 03 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - non notable book. andy (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sergecross73's source discoveries. Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Reviews of a book are considered sufficient sourcing per WP:NBOOK. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  17:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have now pretty much completely rewritten the article, this time with sources. Started a reception section as well. It's not perfect, but I definitely feel it should save it from deletion. Sergecross73   msg me   18:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't see how notability has been established. This is just fan stuff from nn sources. andy (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Then I take it you're not familiar with these websites in particular? Gamertell, Kotaku and 1UP.com are considered reliable sources by Wikiproject Video Games - See WP:VG/S. Pretty certain PopMatters qualifies as a reliable source as well, it's pretty well used in music articles. Not especially familiar with The Austin Chronicle or that Digitally Downloaded website, but the both have established staff and dedicated editors for editorial oversight on the information. These sources are far cries from mere "fan stuff". Have you checked the article since it's been rewritten? Every sentence is verified with one of these reliable sources, nothing unsourced or WP:OR. Sure, its not exactly a GA nom or anything like that, but it clearly passes WP:GNG and point #1 of WP:NBOOKS now.  Sergecross73   msg me   01:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Unambiguously passes point #1 of WP:NBOOK.  Salvidrim!   03:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sergecross73. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.