Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kill screen


 * 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. WP:SNOW - all remaining problems with the article can be fixed by regular editing. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   08:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Kill screen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Made up term uncited by any reliable sources. Article itself contains some video game trivia of dubious encyclopedic value, probably original research. Couldn't find any good sources that used the term. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   20:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I'm not sure, but I believe the term is fairly common. The term appears in books as well as in popular culture. For what it's worth, CBS Television's NCIS series, season 8, episode 16 was called Kill Screen and featured the same. The article definitely needs improvement, but that's a separate issue.--Larry (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. It doesn't seem to be a neologism. Or, at least, it seems to be in wide use. I found simple dicdefs here, here, here, and there's a casual mention here. So, it's a thing. There may be better references that go further in depth, so I'm going to err on the conservative side and give this a weak keep. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - needs better sourcing, but from Google Books it seems to be a term long in use and probably notable. Ansh666 22:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This term can be found at the secondary source tvtropes.org, which while not a reliable source itself, shows that the term has been around since the 8-bit game days. The term appears in sources like an academic paper and the  Encyclopedia of Video Games. There is a gaming magazine named after this concept. The documentary The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters talks about kill screens in Donkey Kong .Along with others' source finds, there is a case for marginal notability, although this is on the basis of many modest sources, not a couple of in-depth ones. I agree that some of the detail in the article may be excessive and could be summarized. But this is a matter of normal editing and a WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem. --Mark viking (talk) 00:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 *  - okay, let's go through these counter-arguments in turn and explain why I think they're weak:
 * Larry - the source is about a TV show, and not about this subject
 * NinjaRobotPirate - "I found simple dicdef" ... "and there's a casual mention" - please read WP:VRS
 * Ash666 - no sources supplied
 * Mark viking -
 * "tvtropes.org, which while not a reliable source itself," - and being a self-published source, is unsuitable.
 * digra.org - what makes this a reliable source?
 * "Encyclopedia of video games" - this would be a good source to use. However, the term does not appear on the page supplied
 * blog.utest.com - what makes this a reliable source?
 * I'm sorry if I've upset anyone by declaring their favourite term is actually completely unverifiable, but Wikipedia's policies clearly state that improperly verifiable material may be challenged and removed. The entire article as it stands contains no reliably verified content whatsoever, and is fair game for being deleted. The only possibility is to blow the whole thing up and write a new article. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   07:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I argue that NRP's sources are enough to pass WP:N. Did you look through them instead of taking his word for it? Also, one of the sources already in the article from donhodges.com mentions that it was featured on kotaku.com and mameworld.net (which unfortunately doesn't exist anymore), which are reputable enough sources. And in any case, much of the sourcing for this will be offline, since it was really only an issue during the 80's. Ansh666 10:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @Ritchie, Facepalm, eh? Don't be so hard on yourself. My point was that there are numerous references to Kill screen in books and such, which was even recognized by a popular TV show (the plot of the show was in fact based on a kill screen in a computer game). Check the source before claiming it fails to talk about the subject article.--Larry (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In your examples only the Rogers book comes anything near what I would call significant coverage at being more than a sentence. As you can see from our policies, that is what is required for an article. Without those, it can have a redirect to perhaps software bug. If this was an AfC submission, I would not hesitate to decline it. If you wish, I can rewrite the entire article using all the sources supplied. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   17:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In your examples only the Rogers book comes anything near what I would call significant coverage at being more than a sentence. As you can see from our policies, that is what is required for an article. Without those, it can have a redirect to perhaps software bug. If this was an AfC submission, I would not hesitate to decline it. If you wish, I can rewrite the entire article using all the sources supplied. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   17:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Template:Facepalm advises, Its use as an expression of abuse, mockery, or for the denigration of others is unacceptable.

Regarding the sources,


 * tvtropes.org - as mentioned, not a reliable source, but it decisively refutes your claim of a Made up term.
 * digra.org - DiGRA is the association for academics and professionals who research digital games and associated phenomena. The author of the paper is a professor at the University of Montreal. It's an authoritative source, per WP:A.
 * Apparently my cut and paste of the GBooks link didn't work, sorry about that. Kill screen is mentioned two places in the Encyclopedia of Video Games: The Culture, Technology, and Art of Gaming, Volume 1: page 70, second column, there is a paragraph on kill screens in Donkey Kong and Pac-man, and page 473, second column, there is paragraph describing the kill screen bug at level 256 for Pac-man.
 * The documentary The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters is the secondary source in this case. The blog was quoted merely to back up my assertion that kill screens are discussed in the film.
 * Along with other sources found by my fellow editors, my keep recommendation stands. --Mark viking (talk) 11:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well in this example, the facepalm was used as an expression of self-abuse and mockery (in as much as I'd found some of the sources everyone else had and considered them insufficient to keep the article). Now, I'm not really a cantankerous old sod, and my mind is prone to changing with convincing arguments. Some convincing counter arguments are now coming out of the woodwork. I have !voted "keep" on several AfDs while simultaneously improving the article (it's called the Heymann Standard), and I would universally recommend everyone to do the same. That's why my user page says "Reliable sources - kills all AfDs. Dead." It's also why the article now has three more reliable sources in it than before the AfD started. I know "AfD isn't cleanup", but if you can cleanup during the AfD, you should! Be cool, people. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   13:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I've changed my mind. I don't want to do a straight delete, but I'd like to propose a Redirect to List of software bugs instead. How does that grab everyone? Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   09:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Since a redirect is basically the same as a WP:Soft delete, that doesn't really change your position at all in the eyes of the keep !voters. Ansh666 17:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyone can expand a full article out of a redirect with additional sources. It doesn't require admin intervention. Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   18:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But that's denying that there are already valid sources, even if they aren't in the article yet. What's wrong with the current stub that you created? Ansh666 19:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Because I want to check the content, expand the article to C class, change my !vote to Keep and close the thread! But I want to check the sources first. Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   21:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not answering my question. What's wrong with the current stub that you created? Ansh666 21:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable term, as others have shown. I restored some valid content the nominator deleted.  Don't do that.  You don't need sources in this article, if it links to where the sources are at in the main article.   D r e a m Focus  19:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "You don't need sources in this article" A number of high profile policies and guidelines, not least WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV suggest otherwise. Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   08:37, 17 October 2013 (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.