Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Beeble


 * 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 delete. Lourdes 14:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Captain Beeble

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are just no substantial sources available about this extremely obscure video game. I checked WP:VG/RS for their custom search engine and got nothing. The sources from the article are minor (first two) or not reliable (PC Museum). Archive.org has nothing. GBooks has nothing that would even hint at a review I could search more in-depth to find. Nothing. I'm not disputing that it exists, but existence isn't enough. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 07:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments I really think that's a bit unfair to think there would be anything on the internet about a game created in 1983, there is one source which supports that a review was published in ANALOG Computing magazine at the time. This is relatively early in the era for computer games and I am sure there maybe a bit more importance regarding computer games at this time. Considering this is 8-bit, I would think you would have to visit the correct hardcopy archive for magazines of the time. Govvy (talk) 09:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , the ANALOG issue is reproduced here (it's one of the sources on the page), and as you can see it's hardly much of a review at all - it's about two sentences long. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Whilst Govvy is right, there is unlikely to be many internet reviews for the site, we do find that video game reviews are very often fanatically updated on websites such as gamerankings, with contemporary games having reviews listed, (And somewhere like Mobygames). Neither of these websites even list the game; whilst atarimania.com, a site that would usually catalogue the game and would have links to the game's advertising, and media comes up with a single ad for the game. These things make it quite unlikely that there was any media regarding the game at all. The article's sourcing, outside of one review doesn't help towards this. We'd need more towards notability.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:PRODUCT through sheer lack of sources. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 04:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with others here; there's very little to be found on the game., you're sound a bit like WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Pac-Man was released in 1980 and there's even an article on the early history of video games. A lot of magazines from that era have found their way onto the internet and with this little to go on, it doesn't meet notability, in my opinion. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply I am neither for nor against this article, I just feel that if you really want to find sources for it then maybe you can, It's simply down to the age of the game for my comments. Govvy (talk) 13:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's a commercially published and advertised game (and not in the sense of mobile games). I just added the manual as a reference. It's playable at archive.org. Just because an old game doesn't have many web sources doesn't mean it isn't worth documenting. Dgpop (talk)
 * The game's manual is not an independent source, so it can't be used to indicate notability. Being uploaded at archive.org also doesn't indicate notability, as you can upload anything there. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 02:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no doubt this was a commercial game from a real company and it was advertised in magazines. It's not sketchy self-published shareware. It's not a personal project. Remove this, and you're removing a consolidated source of what we know about it, and hopefully more sources will be uncovered. Historical games are often much harder to get sources for. Dgpop (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2018 (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.