Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heads Up (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) Captain  Galaxy  23:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Heads Up (video game)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV, current sourcing includes two short blurbs, and then a rather nice review from a dubious source, Electronic Fun with Computer & Games. If there were several other reviews of that caliber, GNG would be met. One of the current sources (Telematch) doesn't even mention the game.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Telematch, a German magazine, refers to the game as "Soccer". It is clear from the review that they are referring to the same game. User:GreenC believed that the sources in the article are legitimate. 2601:243:1C80:6740:2180:D204:E3B:485D (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Electronic Fun with Computers & Games is a WP:RS, so I believe this meets the WP:GNG which requires multiple sources not "several". 2601:243:1C80:6740:2180:D204:E3B:485D (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Engr.  Smitty   Werben 14:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability does not fade with age. The sources are published (ie. print) magazines from the early 80s gaming world. Like in WP:BOOKCRIT #1, reviews of artistic works are essential in determining notability. -- Green  C  15:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Rename the article to Heads Up Action Soccer as that's what it was officially named. https://legacy.lib.utexas.edu/taro/utcah/03148/cah-03148.html Coverage has been found proving it meets the general notability guidelines.   D r e a m Focus  17:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The article cites to multiple printed publications from the 1980s discussing the game. Per the above comments, I also think there is sufficient coverage to demonstrate notability and that the coverage is reliable enough.  DocFreeman24 (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per citations in the article. Rename to Heads Up Action Soccer.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per the numerous RSes cited. Phediuk (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment to closing reviewer - Heads up, I reopened this after One15969 brought it to my attention that many some of the comments were may have been canvassed from a WikiProject. I'll recuse myself from the final decision. Missvain (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Missvain This is an inaccurate accusation and has already turning the AfD into a referendum over misplaced claims of canvassing. I left a message on your talk page, but your unequivocal statement here that "many of the comments were canvassed" will negatively influence voters as a dog whistle on what to do. It's inaccurate, unfair and unsupportable. --  Green  C  00:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * To echo this, the canvassing accusations are not supported IMHO. I was pinged on this when the AFD was opened.  Zxcvbnm is a regular video game contributor, as is Phediuk AFAIK.  The suggestion that there has been something improper here seems really unfair to me as this article does not seem like a close call in terms of deletion to me.DocFreeman24 (talk) 02:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete I can't see anything in the article which proves or suggests notability. It's an early computer game; this is not automatically important. It's an early sports game: ditto. "Reviews of artistic works are essential in determining notability" is a smokescreen. If the product isn't that important, if nothing notable was achieved, if coverage is merely reviews and scores out of 10, then it's nothing more than A. N Other game. The canvassing did its job; the article does not. doktorb wordsdeeds 23:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: The coverage in reviews demonstrates notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - 3 of the 4 "reviews" are nothing more than blurbs in niche magazines, supported by advertising from videogame companies. As such, they do not meet the criteria of WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 04:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Reviews for video games are always on video game review websites or in magazines that cover video games. All of these have advertisements for video games as well, that doesn't matter though.  They have always counted as reliable sources by Wikipedia standards.  And when games were far simpler, the reviews weren't as long since there is far less to write about them.  This still counts as coverage by a reliable source, so counts towards the general notability guidelines.   D r e a m Focus  08:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Subject topic seems to pass GNG with the available cited sources, with potentially more to be discovered given the name discrepancy. Nominator also shows a lack of knowledge or understanding on what constitute to be reliable sources which have been vetted by members of WP:VG over a number of years. Also, nominator is acting in bad faith with baseless accusations of vote canvassing and insinuation of the AfD closer's competence when the consensus does not appear to move towards their POV. Perhaps this is a case of WP:Boomerang and the nominator's competence could or should be called into question? Haleth (talk) 15:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * For convenience and future reference, I believe Haleth is referring to this conversation started by the nominator. 2601:249:8B80:4050:2180:D204:E3B:485D (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep It has enough cited sources to pass notability and minimum criteria for the coverage in media/magazines. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per the numerous RSes cited. Surpassed WP:GNG 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 19:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep these types of old games are hard to write but consistently notable. Reviews exist and you can always expand it to just outside the scope of a stub. They may never become featured articles and that's ok. Wikipedia is better for having a complete list of these games as long as they don't take a promotional tone or rely on primary sources. Archrogue (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keeps per all the reasons above.  Some Dude From North Carolina  (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2021 (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.