Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenny's Journeys


 * 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 Draftify. Consensus shows that this should be sent to draftspace so the creator can continue to work on it. (non-admin closure)  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   11:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Jenny's Journeys

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seemingly WP:NN video game that fails WP:GNG. The only references to this product I've been able to find are passing mentions and/or catalog listings. Toddst1 (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think these points are worth noting:.--Coin945 (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There are currently 10 references being used, and two external links, all third party and reliable - this to me establishes notability.
 * One of the external links (What's the call on CALL? - St. Andrew's University) mentions the phrase "Jenny's Journeys" 10 times, and discusses it quite extensively.
 * Many of the 12 reference/external links in the article could only be accessed via a "snippet view", which means i could only get a fraction of the juicy into those particular sources contained.
 * The game is from 1984, which in video gaming's case means even if sources exist it is very hard to easily locate them due to the lack of preservation of gaming journalism from the 70s-00s online. (Even the WaybackMachine can only do so much). So a lack of current sources doesn't equal a lack of potential sources.


 * Comment - Is there anywhere to redirect/merge? Or maybe send it to draftspace? Sources may be there, but its extremely poorly written, contain little content and no flow between ideas. It doesn't really look like its ready for public viewing... Sergecross73   msg me  19:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Send to draftspace. "Books.google.com.au" is not a publisher and MobyGames is not reliable. Send the article through AfC when it's cleaned up. Re: snippet view—burden is on the adding editor to prove that the ref goes into any detail so if snippet view is all you have, there's no proof there's anything more at the source. czar  18:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Even though the information in certain book sources can't be seen in the "snippet" views, the information can clearly be seen in the "GoogleBooks search page. So it can be proved that the info is really there. TBH I don't think this article is that bad. It has all the relevant sections, no copyvio, written adequately. If taken to draftspace, chances are that will be its permanent purgatory. Whereas here, it can flourish in the Wikipedia ecosystem of collective important and support. It's already been edited by 10 users and as a result is already a huge improvement over that first edit.--Coin945 (talk) 02:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That a mention exists, in no way demonstrates "significant coverage" to satisfy GNG. Toddst1 (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the game actually receives more than just a mention in many of the sources. The only problem is that my view is restricted to the snippet. I would infer from what I *can* see in the GoogleBooks Search preview that the game is discussed in detail and not just fleetingly referred to. However, it is ultimately the decision of the commentators on this page, and I 100% trust their decision.--15:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Send to draftspace. I agree with  czar  to send it to draftspace.--DThomsen8 (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and then Draft if needed as I have found nothing better too and this would need archives attention, delete at best for the time being. SwisterTwister   talk  05:54, 7 June 2016 (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.