Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvester (video game)


 * 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Harvester (video game)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unreferenced, and if I believe what was written here: "Harvester is an old video game and most of the information you can find about it is misleading or false. The only reliable and active source for the information is Harvester fan page on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/lodge.level.4). The creator of the fan page has interviewed the people who made Harvester (there's plenty of interviews on the fan page) and the people who made Harvester have also participated in building the fan page." - there is no reliable sourcing out there. I question whether this is notable enough for a Wikipedia article by itself. Dirk Beetstra T C 06:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment A lot of the coverage for this initially came up as being pretty much unusable as a reliable source (see, , for examples), but I am finding some stuff via HighBeam. I need someone with a HB account to verify some of the contents, as I'm finding enough in the previews to suggest that things such as this article and this one contain reviews of the game. I'm also finding some coverage in other areas, but so far it's coming in at just a trickle. I think that a lot of the coverage has been lost due to it being pre-Internet but I'm seeing enough to where I still have some hopes that there's more coverage that can be found. Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. I didn't initially think that the game was on Metacritic, but it appears to not only be on there but to also have 8 reviews. That's enough to pass notability guidelines at this point in time. I've removed all of the unsourced and non-neutral prose. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Had my doubts at first, but this game is still being written about many years later due to its being bad and/or its excessive horror. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources from WP:VG/RS, such as GameSpot review, CGM review or Just Adventure review. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Fan interviews with the game's staff generally do little for notability but can still be used to build the article's content if notability is otherwise established, and with Hellknowz sources above (and the others) it appears the game is notable. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  14:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - As it stands there seem to be sufficient web-based RSes to met GNG, but... I also wanted to note that I reject the nom's baseline argument that because online information on it is scant or unreliable, therefore there is no reliable sourcing out there. I also disagree with Tokyogirl79's suggestion that pre-Internet sourcing is "lost". The WP:VG Reference Library currently provides access to at least one paper-based article from PC Gamer (US version). I'll check through the magazines I have later tonight, and I'm certain more articles could be dug up on the game if we forget the silly idea that the internet is the first, last, and only place to look for source articles. -Thibbs (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean "lost" in that other sources could never be found. Just "lost" in the way that many pre-Internet paper sources tend to never get logged anywhere and in many cases require at least a few hours of digging through magazines, books, and the like. It's essentially trying to find the needle in the proverbial haystack, as sometimes you only have the year of release to go by- which is never a guarantee that the year of release will be the only time the game is mentioned or released. It's quite common and was common even back then, for games to fly solidly under the radar for the most part and only get mentioned a while after they first hit the shelves. As far as the internet as the "first, last, and only place to look for source articles", you've got to remember that not all of us have access to huge piles of video game magazines or similarly themed physical research materials. I do have a small pile of gaming magazines from the days of yore, but nothing that would really help out in this particular instance. In any case, I did find a good 7-8 sources, one of which was the original PC Gamer review. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. Sorry if I misunderstood you. I've seen plenty of examples of people giving up after a quick Google search and then AfD'ing articles on games from the 90s. The nom's comments really make it sound like the internet is only possible source for articles. Anyway I found a review of the game in Computer Games Magazine but that's all I could get from my personal collection since I have a focus on console games. The CGM article is reprinted here incidentally. -Thibbs (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are attributing the argument that there is scant online information to me - the argument comes from User_talk:XLinkBot (diff). I did however take that remark at face value and did not look much further than a quick Google search where I did not see much obvious and strong coming up.  The existence of a fan-page does show some notability (if there are fans ..), but that alone is certainly and by far not enough.  I'm glad to see there are non-online references (for those who know me, I am arguing often that a reference does not even need a link to an online source, a plain text reference mention is enough, the rest (the direct link) is plain convenience and not necessary - I would be the last to reject a paper source that does really not have a (legal) online copy available).  I'll leave this discussion to an independent (WP:SNOW?) close, which I think is now obvious.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to hear this then, and disappointed in User_talk:XLinkBot#Harvester_.28video_game.29. I'd briefly quibble that the fan-pages can't show notability unless they themselves are reliable sources since Notability on Wikipedia is defined by significant coverage in multiple independent/third-party RSes. But anyway thanks for your attitude toward offline sources. -Thibbs (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is the 'independent/third-party RSes' .. fan-sites are almost by definition not independent (they are almost by definition 'propaganda' for the subject), and only third-party when that term is very broadly construed. And I think that that remark of me is completely in line with WP:V and how it should be - it is about being able to verify, it does not mean that you yourself have to be able to do it there, on the spot, without any form of effort or even have to ask someone else.  'PC Magazine, first issue of 1976, page 3' is totally sufficient (as long as it is properly attributing the statement on Wikipedia), as is 'Science, 2014, issue 1, page 1' (even if having direct external links to the document and names of authors and other metadata is better ..).  But here, I only had a fanpage on facebook (and we know that anyone can make a facebook page) ..  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no question about the citation issue. The addition of a URL is certainly not required any more at Wikipedia than it is in academic papers. It's a courtesy to readers and nothing more. And I agree that fan pages are essentially never independent/third-party RSes, though it's been established that individual fan-forum posts can be used as WP:SPSes on the topic of themselves if the poster is a first-party source, and facebook interviews would probably also fall into this category as well. -Thibbs (talk) 12:18, 28 January 2014 (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.