Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Light Rangers: Mending the Maniac Madness


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  13:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Light Rangers: Mending the Maniac Madness

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Unless (entirely possible given Wikipedia's bizarre criteria) any video game is notable, this is not notable. First three refs are run of the mill listings, the fourth appears to be a site selling the trhing. The only ref of even slight substance is a review in a niche publication. Game appea5rrs to have sunk without trace; off with its head! TheLongTone (talk) 11:03, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I think that the game is worth including due to its cultural ties and the notability of some of its contributors, as outlined in the article.
 * I've added a source from Wired with information on the game, which should be a good-quality publication. Web search reveals that IGN apparently reviewed the title as well, but this link has since rotted. Doughbo (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete The Wired source is simply a trivial mention. If that's the best the article creator can come up with, it's clear they can't prove the notability of their creation. WP:ITSIMPORTANT does not hold water in a deletion debate. It's also possible the IGN listing is merely a directory listing and not a review. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:HASREFS, WP:HASPOT. I've initially kept the details of the game short to be expounded upon later, but the sources provided give ample description of the title's plot and the work put into its development. Most live articles are unsurprisingly niche, as the game released nearly 20 years ago and most major sources do not keep a historic database of articles.
 * That said, interest in and preservation of this title is an ongoing effort. See WP:CONTIN. The Archive entry for this title was uploaded in 2022, as was this corresponding footage. I understand concerns regarding notability, but subcultures are not moot. It's likely that the young age of the title's audience has delayed its documentation. Doughbo (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * See also interest generated in 2014 from a lost media episode of Cartridge Blowers. Doughbo (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please familiarize yourself with WP:GNG as that is what is at issue here. A game must have multiple, significant mentions from reliable sources before being created. The easiest example of which are reviews or previews. Since Wikipedia is not a database, it is not in the business of preserving information about old, non-notable games, that should be done by the relevant organization, such as Archive.org.
 * It doesn't seem like publications reviewed the game upon release, so unless you can find examples of that, it will be a difficult task to retain the article on Wikipedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments and advice. How's this? After hours of research, I was surprised to suddenly find that someone discussed the game in their doctoral dissertation. Doughbo (talk) 03:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My apologies for double replying. I really need to get less trigger happy on the submit button.
 * See also this. Granted, in neither of these scholarly articles was this title the primary focus of the analysis, however, both analyses contain specific textual references to the game's plotline and features such that it seems to satisfy WP:HASREFS.
 * The article has also come a long way since I first submitted it. We have now cited five publications which reviewed the game, two of which are small, independent publishers, one of which is a moderately large publication, and the other is Wired, albeit the latter mentions the title only in passing.
 * I'm considering adding a section on reception and controversy based on the two scholarly sources referenced, but I think such discussion as may be derived from the two present sources might be best suited for another article. Doughbo (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I wasn't able to access the first one, but with the second one at least, the game is not discussed in its own section, but as part of a more vague grouping of titles with similar elements. It is clear that the author does not consider the game significant enough to discuss on its own. That's a clear signal for Wikipedia not to do it either.
 * Numerous trivial mentions do not go full Voltron and combine to form a significant source. The significant source must exist as a standalone entity. It should be enough to "fully describe the game and its gameplay", which right now is difficult to impossible. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I've done my best to save it but it seems the article is DOA. Thanks for your feedback, anyhow.
 * If some other user has any idea how to knit these sources into an acceptable entry, I welcome any contribution or feedback. Doughbo (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Could not find enough WP:SIGCOV, which is a shame, as this is quite interesting. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2023 (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.