Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abracadabra! (video game)


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Abracadabra! (video game)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NVG. Only one source, an ostensibly self-published blog, discusses it in depth; the other two are an ad made by the game's publisher, which is also self-published and only briefly mentions the game, and its entry in a database for Atari games that merely lists stats about the game. ben ǝʇᴉɯ 01:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy,  and Video games.  ben ǝʇᴉɯ  01:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Being an old game, it's entirely possible we are missing old print sources. However, we can't assume they exist. Mobygames (itself unreliable, but a good source for finding reviews that may be reliable) has zero reviews listed, where many old games have several print magazines generally listed. There's unsurprisingly no hits in WP:VG/S's search engine. -- ferret (talk) 01:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to, presumably, Tutankham, where it is mentioned. While I don't see enough coverage for an article in what is present now (I did not search myself for more), I think the commentary we have should be WP:PRESERVEd in the spirit of WP:AtD. Daranios (talk) 10:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The comparisons of Abracadabra! to Tutankham seem to be original research. There are no sources for it on either page, and I can't seem to find any sources that compare the two either. I would be hesitant to merge based on that. ben ǝʇᴉɯ  21:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Changing my !vote, as below now two reviews have been found, fullfilling the minimum requirement of WP:GNG, which are supplemented by other sources. Also voids the problem of where to merge. Daranios (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: Upon doing some further research, I found a couple old print mentions of the game, although both of them are passing. An article in Creative Computing merely says that it's a "two-player maze game", and an article in Analog Computing mentions that it's one of four arcade/action games released by TG Software. If there was an article on TG Software, we could merge it into that, but information on the company also seems to be scarce. ben ǝʇᴉɯ  22:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Regarding, the Polish website, it's seem decent - as in, they do discuss their review process, they do interviews, they have a video YT channel. At the same time, they are not a traditional magazine, and are "new media". I'd classify them as fanzine, but shrug, potato, potato. Considering WP:VGRS, I think they are not worse from many other sources out there. All that said, WP:GNG requires two sources, so we are one short... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, here's a second source:, but it is also in Polish. Griggorio2 (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think it scrapes by GNG due to the Komputer review Griggorio2 linked, as well as a review in Zong, as seen here. Waxworker (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh that's a good one, thank you. I will include it in the Reception section. Griggorio2 (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep? - seeing as I'm the author of the article, I'm not sure whether I'm allowed to vote, or if it's even a good practice - if not - please disregard my vote. We managed to find two contemporary sources - this game was really popular in my country back in the day, so I'm frankly somewhat surprised we couldn't find more. Griggorio2 (talk) 05:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Your argument-based opinion/!vote is very welcome. The fact that you are the author does not hinder that in any way. Rather, an author might have valuable input as they know how they went about the creation, how extensive their search for sources was in the first place, etc. Daranios (talk) 07:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Further comments would be helpful in establishing consensus on whether sources discussed are sufficient to satisfy notability requirements. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - I am satisfied with the sources found, sufficient notability to warrant inclusion. MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep with three independent reviews seems to pass WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 06:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This search really results in a haystack! Kudos to those above who have managed to find the needles! The sources that have been found here are sufficient SP:SIGCOV. The topic passes WP:GNG. Jacona (talk) 10:37, 23 June 2022 (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.