Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gremlins (Atari 2600)


 * 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The result was   Nomination withdrawn. I still don't think it's notable, but I am clearly in a minority of one, and I accept consensus. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Gremlins (Atari 2600)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No evidence of notability, either in the article or elsewhere that I can find. PROD was contested with the edit summary "uh the game is rare but still notable http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bur3oMpkJqg". However, a YouTube video of the game being played does nothing whatsoever to establish notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If someone can expand it and add reliable sources fine, but I think for now this just needs a redirect to List of Atari 2600 games. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Take into account, this game came out in 1984, which pre-dates the internet. Reviews are mostly hard copy from that time. However, I was able to find a few of them online,  (1 removed due to blacklist?) are a few. That these are even online tells you something. The game is still being talked about decades later. The computer game magazines of the time should have additional reviews. Not sure where to get copies of them. However, I think there are plenty of reviews out there now discussing this game. Actually, it should be games - there are two very different games by Atari, both by the same name (2600, 5200 platforms). The article can be greatly expanded. Since there is no article for the 5200, I also suggest a name change to be more inclusive - since a lot of the reviews also contrast the two different games. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. On a whim I did a search for sources and expanded the article. It should easily pass the notability criteria now.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, due to Cuchullain's excellent rescue job. With the new sources (The Video Game Critic review and the review in Brett Weiss' classic gaming book), the expanded article solidly meets the requirements of WP:GNG. 28bytes (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added to the article some information about the game's debut from a 1984 InfoWorld article. 28bytes (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per significant coverage in multiple sources. I added an additional reference just now as well. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 03:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is now much more substantial than it was when I created the nomination, and so if the outcome turns out to be "keep" then the nomination will have served a very useful purpose. However, looking at the references cited, I see fairly insubstantial mentions. While the lack of sources is not as severe as I described in the nomination, they still do not seem to me to come near to establishing notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per the improvement. While it is true that the article is not in the best of shape yet, I think that it's good enough that the AfD should be closed for now; if it doesn't improve enough outside of these admittedly insubstantial mentions, a second AfD may be appropriate. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems notable enough with new references.--Sloane (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Snow keep per everybody else. 69.136.6.110 (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Snowball close and keep. Per everyone else. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:24, 24 March 2011 (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.