Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hero's Heart (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 delete. North America1000 02:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hero's Heart (video game)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. Reliable video game web source search returns 0 useful results and I'm unable find any evidence of print sources covering the game. The1337gamer (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Struck duplicate listing; already listed on the Video games delsort page. North America1000 06:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

If anyone took the time to see my edits, they'd know I added additional sources after this proposal for deletion. One of those sources is the creator of the games' own Website? And, if you read the actual article, you'll see that I'm just using a screenshot of the actual game's In-Game documentation that is hosted by MobyGames to provide reference data, not MobyGames themselves. This is kinda insane to be honest...I think 2x sources and a screenshot are qualified for bare minimums on a game that came out during an era where documentation is going to obviously be lax. --EarthBoundX5 (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * To establish notability for Wikipedia, you need independent reliable sources (eg. review in published/online magazine with regular staff). Your sources are either not independent on the article subject, or user generated content. In both cases not reliable sources in Wikipedia sense. Pavlor (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So if an object doesn't get printed in a review, it is doomed to be lost to time? That seems unbelievably against the whole notion of preservation of knowledge...something I thought Wikipedia favored?  It also seems to remove the concept of wikipedia all together...taking historical records out of the media and into a user generated realm, not the other way waround.  Don't delete something because it's hard to find a source that reviewed it...if the author's site has evidence (http://www.kaser.com/mesh.html), 3rd party sites show evidence (https://www.classicdosgames.com/game/Hero's_Heart.html), and the media itself is shown as evidence (https://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/209599-hero-s-heart-dos-screenshot-nag-screen.png)...then that should be more than sufficient for a page to sit for others to add to over years?  Do I need to petition some big media outlet to publish a story referencing the same martial I have in order for wikipedia to consider it sufficient?  That seems crazy?  And my god...wikipedia itself is user generated content...  Would physical scans of the media uploaded to wikipedia be source material enough?  Do I need to start digging through magazines from the early 90s that never made it to the Internet to prove this case?  If so, then I know wikipedia is truly a dead source of knowledge.  --EarthBoundX5 (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If there was some review published magazine in the early 1990s, then that would be (probably) really good source for notability. I agree it is somewhat hard to find non-online sources, but this task is not impossible, as many magazine scans are now online. Notability requirements of Wikipedia are now much higher than few years ago: page that was acceptable back then is now doomed to fail at AfD. Pavlor (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - This was a Shareware game, many of which were never reviewed by any magazine but simply listed in advertising. My WP:BEFORE turned up nothing, therefore fails WP:GNG. Don't worry, Moby Games and other sites will preserve it. FOARP (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - As well as a fruitless standard search, I also couldn't find any significant coverage in a search of archive.org's magazine scans. (There was an ad listing in Micro Sistemas (Brazil) that included a title of this name, but that's far from significant coverage.) While it can be a little tricky to find information on games from this era, it's normally possible to find far more than this for any notable title. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, this seems to fail WP:GNG. Lowercaserho (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, home made game. no search engine results.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perf115 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2019 (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.