Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adventure Island 3


 * 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) Such-change47 (talk) 05:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Adventure Island 3

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

Nominating for deletion after coming across it during routine clean-up tasks. There are no reliable, independent sources found for this topic that meet the notability standard at WP:N. While not policy, I have considered the essay at WP:NVIDEOGAMES and find it persuasive and logical. There it is stated a "video game is appropriate for an article if it has been the subject of significant commentary or analysis in published sources independent of the developer". I agree with this, and as there are no such sources for this video game, the article covering it is not fit for inclusion on Wikipedia and should be deleted. Such-change47 (talk) 08:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weakish Keep This one is tough. It's an older game. Metacritic generally doesn't have games before around 2002, and Gamerankings shutdown. I found a spreadsheet someone saved of all GR scores prior to shutdown, and it wasn't even listed. Here's the kicker: It was "Adventure Island 3" for NES but "Adventure Island II: Aliens in Paradise" in EU for it's GB port. Neither is in GR. Moby however does have a list of critic reviews, and they are not all unreliable. My weak keep is based on the existence of these reviews: NintendoLife, EGM (Feb, 1993, print review), Hardcore Gaming 101, Video Games (Dec, 1993, print review), GamePro (US, Aug, 1992, print review), Play Time (May, 1993, print review), Total! (Germany, Jun, 1993, print review). Some more of the reviews at Moby may be reliable, but I know the ones I've denoted are reliable print publications or websites vetted at WP:VG/RS. I don't at all fault the nominator for missing this, searching for this game is difficult due to age and the odd English naming of the GB port. MobyGames itself is deemed unreliable, but it's list of reviews is often useful for finding reliable sources. -- ferret (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Mobygames has a number of contemporaneous reviews. WP:NEXIST applies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Ferret. Plenty of reviews that need to be implemented. Timur9008 (talk) 21:09 ,4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as i know there are plenty of sources to justify its article. I could help by finding and placing them on the article. Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please can you do this? Consensus seems to be keep, people are stating there are sources but I cannot find any. If someone pleases finds these reliable sources independent of the subject and includes them, I will withdraw my AFD nom. I cannot find these sources myself after looking. Thanks! Such-change47 (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean. I directly listed seven sources. What do you mean you cannot find any? For AFD, per WP:NEXIST, we just need to know the sources exist, they don't have to be added in first to avoid deletion. -- ferret (talk) 03:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Ferret. The current sourcing is a little lacking, but the sourcing clearly exists, with at least a few paragraphs to build a proper article. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:47, 6 May 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.