Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acrophobia (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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Acrophobia (game)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - Prod was removed a while back, but still no improvement. No notability established for game. Only one outside media reference is used as a source, need at least two or more independent, reliabe, non-trivial sources demonstating why the topic should be considered notable (not just that it exists -- proof of existence is not proof of notability). The Eingang page/Acrophobia FAQ/Just the FAQa is run by the programmer, the Talk City page is promotional for their version. These two sources are not independent, and therefore do not establish notability. The one outside source (WIRED) presents this as a minor product of certain company that is not even mentioned on this page, Berkeley Systems... going to that article shows that the game was so nonnotable to that company that it isn't worth mentioning there. DreamGuy (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC) ...as for the stub tagging, I properly categorized this article and added a stub tag before I began to work on the rest of it. This is pretty standard stuff. Stub tags are for editors, not readers. I suggest you read User:Pegship/The nature of stub sorters. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep This subject has been covered in the past by Wired.com which is a major publication See (This link is included in the article.) The nominator seems to have targeted this article only after I began to clean it up. Tothwolf (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand how notability is established here. One source from a long time back mentioning a company doing a game online and then folding is nowhere near enough. On top of that, I did not "target" the article after you "began to clean it up" (adding a previously deleted image, minor stub sorting and links that violate WP:EL rules doesn't count as anything like clean up), I noticed that the article was still around after I prodded it last year for deletion because your edit made it show up on my watchlist. DreamGuy (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You did indeed target the article, you saw it on your watchlist and decided swoop in and try your hand at getting it deleted again while I was actively working on it. It doesn't matter if one company folded or not (I've not verified your claim yet) but the game itself is not a product of one individual company. This game continues to exist and many other versions exist. You intentionally removed links to other versions of the game before nominating this article for AfD and claim "links that violate WP:EL"? Also because you claim one company "folded"; Notability is not temporary Tothwolf (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment ...Now, as for the image that I fixed... That image, File:Acrophobia screenshot.png was a casualty of BetacommandBot's overzealous image deletion tagging.— Never Forget


 * Comment For the record, this is a genre of a type of word game, not a single game from a single company. This is something that the nominator has either overlooked or has chosen to omit mentioning here. Tothwolf (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Furthermore, the nominator might wish to preform a search for Acromania (and Acro Mania), which is another name for this genre of game. There is a redirect from Acromania to Acrophobia (game) on Wikipedia, which the nominator would have seen had he followed WP:BEFORE. (And NOW I have to wait for this AfD to be over with before I can continue to clean up and work on rewriting this article...) Tothwolf (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, really, there's a Wikipedia redirect at another name? Wow, that sure establishes notability. You might want to tone down your indignation and, I don't know, see if you can actually come up with reliable sources that meet WP:NOTABILITY standards. DreamGuy (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't have the ability to WP:AGF when someone makes an edit such as this before doing this  in an attempt to further discount an article before nominating it for deletion. Wired Magazine is a WP:RS. Tothwolf (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Tothwolf. Wired is a reliable source. Acebulf (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Also, let the AFD talk for itself and please do not turn this into a war. Acebulf (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are 8 non-trivial published sources for Acrophobia. I hope 8 are enough as I don't feel like adding any others to citation templates right now. DreamGuy, thanks for forcing me to have to look this stuff up ahead of schedule and for disrupting my entire day. You could have looked this stuff up yourself yet you chose not to.
 * Comment Berkeley Systems was an extremely well known software publisher back in the days of Microsoft Windows 3.1. They created software such as After Dark, which included among other things, the infamous "Flying Toasters" screen saver. This company is hardly not notable.


 * --Tothwolf (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep – I'll assume good faith in that the above sources are good. Tothwolf, I recommend you do the same with others next time. MuZemike 23:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * MuZemike, I understand, however there was more going on here than what was readily apparent at AfD. Check the edit history on the article and you'll see more of what I'm talking about. A really short version is that this was a bogus AfD nomination and DreamGuy would have seen all of these and then some had he checked Google. Tothwolf (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep in good faith. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  19:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep assuming article is improved with some of the additional references mentioned. Berkeley is a notable company, but as DreamGuy notes, is not currently mentioned anywhere in the article (and even if it were, doesn't in itself guarantee notability for all of its products). There may be bad blood between you guys, but with the article as it stands, without the additional references, the AFD was not completely out of the question; let's assume some good faith all around, please. --GRuban (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC) (UTC)
 * Comment The Berkeley Systems article itself very incomplete and properly expanded it would be quite large. I was in the process of starting work on the Acrophobia (game) article (including a preliminary reference check) when DreamGuy saw it come up in his watchlist and nominated it for AfD. AFAIK, there is no "bad blood" between myself and DreamGuy, but I do not think nominating this article (and a prod and then AfD of another article after sources were added) for AfD when sources are readily available is appropriate. IMO a cleanup template noting his concerns would have been a much better idea. I'll include some Google Books links for the above citations shortly so others can check them. Considering DreamGuy is an experienced editor and has made over 20,000 edits to date I have a hard time believing he could not find these same sources via Google Books. Tothwolf (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment A number of links quickly produced from Google Books:
 * Google Books search for Acrophobia game
 * The Whole Internet— limited preview on Google Books, very complete coverage of Berkeley Systems' games.
 * CIO Web Business: Customer Knowledge: Ahead of the Game
 * Gadgets, Games and Gizmos for Learning
 * Interactive Storytelling
 * The ASTD Handbook of Training Design and Delivery
 * --Tothwolf (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2009 (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.