Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bottomless pit (video games)


 * 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. - Philippe 01:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Bottomless pit (video games)

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

This article has no references, and I can't see any evidence that the topic has any degree of notability/importance. This article is filled with baseless generalizations and doesn't seem to have any useful factual content. Graevemoore (talk) 05:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral I'm kind of surprised that references can't be found for this, but it does seem like a rather empty idea for an article. JuJube (talk) 08:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete Doesn't assert notability and doesn't really contain much encyclopedic info. PeterSymonds |  talk  09:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral I don't want to !vote to delete because I know it's a real phenomenon; I'm going to try to find sources. As I've found in writing some articles, there's little in the way of video game glossaries/encyclopedias out there. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Huh. Weird. This is a very common video game design element, and it's not inconceivable to find stuff about it in that context. Where would we start looking? Gamasutra? --Kiz o r  14:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This doesn't seem like an appropriate stand-alone article, but what about a section within an article like Hazard (video games)? Someoneanother 16:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but Cleanup with Sources. The concept of the Bottomless Pit is quite heavily referenced in game reviews - a quick search turned up several here, here, here, here, here and here. It's also referred to in game design books here and here. There's also an editorial involving the concept here. The article needs work, but it should be possible to reference. --Gazimoff (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with the first articles is that they only contain a brief mention that bottomless pits exist as a hazard in the game. The only verifiable information in the article would be a list of games (and, eventually, movies and TV shows) that mention having a bottomless pit. Your overview article is actually about difficulty, and contains only a passing reference to bottomless pits. Therefore, a properly sourced article would consist only of the aforementioned list, and I'm not sure if that's a meaningful article. Graevemoore (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand your viewpoint, but I disagree. It should be possible to build an article describing the use of bottomless pits, where they feature in games and how they are used as a mechanic from the review sources enclosed. It can also refer to reception of this mechanic, again citing those reviews. This may also include references to game guides and so on to expand further. The list above is what I managed to come up with in about ten minutes after consulting the Oracle of Mountain View] without referencing other sources, so the potential is definately not exhausted. Gazimoff (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but article should not just cover bottomless pits in video games. Should cover movies, tv shows, etc.  RC-0722 247.5/ 1  17:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable from Gazimoff's links. As for covering non-video games, notice the title of this article. That should be done at bottomless pit, which is a dab right now. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Bottomless pit is a disambig page, and therefore the article should be moved to Bottomless pit.  RC-0722 247.5/ 1  18:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Assuming it were expanded from its current form; I think there's enough to warrant separate articles (I'm a little bit surprised a generic article hasn't existed yet). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand per Gazimoff. --Pixelface (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per Gazimoff, and get some references in the article. I'm not convinced about non-trivial coverage here, but IMHO it's encyclopedic and notable enough (barely) to warrant its own article.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 20:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, but it would be nice to have an article on bottomless pits in general, with this as one section of it. Everyking (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. This article has potential to be encyclopedic and really interesting, however as it is right now there are no sources and fails WP:NOR. -- Mr Stalker  ( talk ) 13:07, 19 April 2008 (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.