Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cavern Creatures


 * 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) — Theo polisme  23:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Cavern Creatures

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Only a single, short reference was found in the past 6 years for the game. Author contested PROD. Delete per WP:GNG as the game does not appear to be notable for any reason. Odie5533 (talk) 06:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:GNGDeathlibrarian (talk) 10:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions . — Frankie (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep As Odie5533 pointed out, the game appears to have fallen into virtually complete obscurity, but it also appears to have been a somewhat significant (albeit not an "exceptional" or "above average") boxed release for the Apple II gaming market in its day. However, I understand the potential counterargument that the Apple II gaming market was much smaller than that associated with modern gaming consoles, so a "significant release" in the context of a historical niche market may not necessarily suffice for inclusion on Wikipedia unless its notability extends beyond a handful of short reviews in old gaming magazines.  I was able to locate two relatively brief reviews published in gaming magazines back in the day and I suspect that at least a couple more could potentially be found.  Admittedly though, I'm still relatively new at this, so I have no idea whether this is sufficient to satisfy the "significant coverage" criterion in WP:GNG's "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".  So that's why my "keep" is "weak", but regardless, here's what I've found:
 * (five paragraph review)
 * (one paragraph review)
 * --Mike Agricola (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Mike Agricola's sources. I see multiple RSes with significant coverage so the Notability threshold is met. The article may not ever make it to FA status, but it does belong on Wikipedia. -Thibbs (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: I agree that the Notability threshold is met. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2012 (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.