Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Begin (computer game) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Begin (computer game)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )
 * (Find sources: begin tactical starship simulation)
 * (Find sources: begin tactical starship simulation)

Article does not present any reliable sources for verification, nor provide a rationale for notability (WP:V, WP:N). Previous AfD did not provide any valid keep arguments, and was closed when the nominator conceded a merge proposal (which never took place). In its present state, I can't endorse a merger since there's no verified information to merge. Abandonia is disputed as a reliable source (WP:VG/RS) Marasmusine (talk) 10:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  Marasmusine (talk) 10:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is clearly a historic and notable computer game, from the early days of computer programming. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I'm missing something here, but in what way is it notable? Marasmusine (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of reliable sources, even a revise search in WP:VG reliable sources (with the title, year and developer) turned up nothing. May be notable for classic gamers, but lack of sources state that it isn't notable for Wikipedia unfortunately. --Teancum (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep At one time this game was "the best and most detailed simulator accessible to the blind." Reviews of this game abound in early PC magazines whose indices unfortunately have not yet been put on Internet. LionelT (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that's not the case, but the sources need to be provided and placed in the article to prove it. I would suggest flagging the article for rescue and someone may possibly be able to help.  Without sources we can't prove its notability, old or new. --Teancum (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * hmmm. does anyone here have access to an index of periodicals, and can they help to try to start tracking some of this stuff down? It looks like in this case, some processed wood pulp will need to be called in to help the electrons!!! :-) --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey...have you guys seen this discussion???! --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per Audyssey and PC-SIG references.  Seems like the criteria that incepted this AFD has been resolved.  -C HAIRBOY  (☎) 23:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The reference to Audyssey Magazine established notability.  D r e a m Focus  01:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per above and per previous AFD that had several valid keep arguments echoed above, was closed as keep against the delete request from the nominator and was followed by a merge. --Kkmurray (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for Rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.   Snotty Wong   comment 04:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm still eager to see the magazine references mentioned last November, as it still needs to be significant coverage to meet our notability threshold. Since further efforts are being made to rescue the article, I'm willing to have the AfD closed with the proviso that it be reopened if all the coverage turns out to be trivial. Marasmusine (talk) 10:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Sources so far merely show that it exists. The PC-SIG reference seems to merely come from a vendor of classic games, and vendors are typically looked on as not being a reliable source.  The first source (MobyGames) is used properly in the sense that it only supports who developed the game, but won't be enough with the PC-SIG reference to hold up the article.  The Home of the Underdogs reference again goes back to verifiability, but provides no notability. The Audyssey Magazine reference seems to look good - I've never heard of this magazine, but it appears to have been in existence since the late 90s, and covers games for the visually impaired. I still feel like more critical coverage from reliable sources is needed to pass general notability guidelines. Right now there's one critical review an little-to-no coverage elsewhere. I did find one mention in a Metacritic feature, but it's merely a mention of Begin and Begin 2.  With other, more significant references this could probably be added to increase notability, but isn't enough to help the article on its own. --Teancum (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Author posted on 7/21/10 he will scan in 3rd party reviews this weekend Lionel (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Can a forum member chase this up please? Marasmusine (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2010 (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.