Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assault (1983 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Assault (1983 video game)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page does not seem to establish notability. Only one of the sources here is actually reliable and I haven't been able to find anything else about it - Google simply brings up unreliable sources, pages for an unrelated Namco arcade game, and stuff about World War II conflicts. Namcokid47 (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 01:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete appears to be a little known game made by a small 3rd party publisher for a console that notoriously had a lot of rubbish produced for it Seasider91 (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Fails WP:GNG, wasn't able to find much on this one besides a review on a site of questionable reliability at . Moby doesn't offer much as well. Seeing the contributions and the work on GA articles, it's pretty clear there isn't much to be found. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Old school games from the 8-bit era - particularly anything that came out for the ZX Spectrum, Commodore 64, or BBC Micro - are almost always notable because they will have been reviewed by at least two different magazines given the prevalence of computing magazines at that time. Whilst the usual sources for reviews came up blank due to a lack of this game being ported over to more popular platforms, I do see one review in a book covering retro games: 1. The Moby database lists a 3/6 review from TeleMatch in July 1983, which is not exactly helpful since TeleMatch (a German magazine) did not have a July 1983 edition (it was a bimonthly magazine) and there was no such review in its June/July 1983 edition, however a little searching showed that it had a review of this game on p.31 of its August/September 1983 edition. Conclusion: two reviews in reliable sources, and as such, notable. FOARP (talk) 07:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Those references, while surprisingly decent and much better than what was published (thanks for finding them out through a better search work), aren't going to change my opinion here. The book reference for example isn't really a WP:SIGCOV that I expect of a review. Can't comment on the second one because it's in German. I agree with that WP:BARE says "subject that seems to be barely notable may really not be notable at all." We don't need to have an article for every video game published. Wikipedia is not a directory for every video game published. Especially knowing that video games get coverage in reliable sources extremely easy (would be actually rare to find a one that doesn't). I can't pretend that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES either. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Two multi-paragraph reviews would be considered sufficient WP:SIGCOV for any book/game/album. Each meets the requirements of WP:SIGCOV that they "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content". These sources address the game directly, and tell us details such as who the developers were, when it was released, and how good it was. They are also national-level reliable sources (one a book from a reputable publisher with an ISBN, the other a WP:NEWSORG) and as such easily meet WP:RS.
 * The early age of gaming is, if you'll forgive me a slight exaggeration, of similar significance to the early age of film and as such each game from that era has some significance. WP:BARE is, anyway, an essay, and doesn't trump WP:GNG. This is not a directory article, a list or whatever, and does not fall within WP:NOT. WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES does not apply where there ARE sources. FOARP (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna have to agree with Jovanmilic right here. Wikipedia isn't a database for all video games, that's what Killer List of Video Games or other database sites are for. While I'm glad you've found sources for it (and rather surprised), I don't see how it's enough to warrant the page being kept. Maybe you can change my mind on it? Namcokid47 (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources weren't easy to find, but they are significant coverage in reliable sources, written decades apart. That's a pretty strong indicator of notability and meets WP:GNG. One even points out that the game was the first to feature a particular functionality. FOARP (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your good work, but a paragraph of 3 longer sentences in a book isn't going to meet WP:SIGCOV. Yes, it addresses the subject directly, but not in-detail as required. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The book review is not a single para, since there is preceding information on p. 32.
 * WP:SIGCOV requires that the source ""addresses the topic directly and in detail". The book review addresses the topic directly, since it is directly about this game. It addresses it in detail, since it provides the following details: game name, developer, publisher, release date, game genre, number of players, Assault is repetitious, similar games to Assault, details of gameplay, Assault is hard to find now, Assault has an unusual firing system. WP:SIGCOV is definitely met. FOARP (talk) 06:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * PS - one further RS review: TV Gamer, Autumn 1983, P.20. Took a lot of finding as had to go digging through magazines that aren't text-searchable and which often aren't logically arranged (e.g., games aren't in alphabetical order) and it's not clear when exactly during 1983 this launched (appears to have launched at different times in different markets, and reviewer copies seem not to have been sent out at the same time). FOARP (talk) 09:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The article still lacks a development section of sorts, which imo should be needed for any and all video game articles. Namcokid47 (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not sure a development section is necessary for the article to exist, any more than a section on the recording of an album or the writing of a book is a must-have, but at the very least we know who the developers were (Bomb) and where they were from (Asia). The lack on a section about the development of the game is ultimately a page-quality issue and not for AFD. All that's really necessarily is that it should pass WP:GNG, WP:V, and WP:NOT, and on all three it passes since we have WP:SIGCOV from at least two magazine reviews and a book as well as the reliable source recited in your nom. FOARP (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I think you've convinced me in keeping the page. I'll withdraw the nomination. Namcokid47 (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I will strike my !Delete vote per 's fantastic work. I still consider the book as not WP:SIGCOV (I don't consider "in-detail" as in the number of the things it covers, but the depth of the coverage as in length), but the sourcing is tending to switch me to the Keep side (first time I heard about Atari HQ being a reliable source, nice). I will try to find something more on the game if I can. This, while WP:SIGCOV, seems unreliable, and this is a community review (so also unreliable). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Finding these references took a lot of work and I don't blame you or User:Namcokid47 for not finding them. Really, the original author of this article should have done a better job of finding them. FOARP (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Reviews have been found. These games were so simple that's as long of a review as you could write for them.   D r e a m Focus  04:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. RSes have been added to the article. Phediuk (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2019 (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.