Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milo's Astro Lanes


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Milo's Astro Lanes

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Contested prod. Prod nomination based on failure to adhere to WP:N, specifically lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Prod remover countered that the game was reviewed in the magazines of the day and on gaming websites. These reviews are, however, primary sources, and WP:N specifically requires significant coverage in secondary sources. Indrian (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I was the prod remover, FWIW. The reviews in question are IGN and GameSpot. I don't see how these are primary sources, being external to the game's publishers and reviewing the game in a once removed fashion described by WP:SECONDARY. Could you be more specific as to how these are primary as opposed to secondary sources please Indrian. Someoneanother 22:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe you are confused as to the difference between an objective source and a primary source. A primary source is any source documenting something close to the time that thing occurred.  This includes not just journals, diaries, interviews, business documents, etc., but also newspaper articles and other sources that report on an event or experience as it happens.  See this page for some common definitions http://www.library.unt.edu/digitalprojects/metadata/elements/primary-sources-definition.  A game review published at the time of a game's release is an account of the nature of a game at the time it first appeared, making it a primary source.  It is not one-step removed from the event as you say, because the event is the release of the game and the review appears within a short time of that release and is directly tied to the author's experience of that event.  Even later reviews would most likely still be primary sources since they are the result of a direct interaction with the game just as a WWII veteran's memoir is drawn from direct experiences in the war.  Secondary sources are works of synthesis based on such sources that interpret these experiences.  In this case, a secondary source would be a research article that attempts to quantify the good and bad points of this game by researching reviews of the game and synthesizing points from several of them to create a complete picture.  Indrian (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * . A primary source is any source documenting something close to the time that thing occurred.  No. Not hardly. And I put that in bold because it is absolutely necessary to emphasise just how completely wrong that assessment of a primary source is. Please see WP:PRIMARY. A primary source is a source that is connected with the subject of the article. I.E. Nintendo for a Super Mario Bros. game, General Motors for the Chevrolet Camaro, Taco Bell on Chalupas, etc. It has absolutely nothing to do with how far "removed in time from the event" the source is. At all. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy close/keep. Nomination based on a misunderstanding of WP:PRIMARY. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but you have absolutely no idea what a primary source is and your frequent use of bold only highlights your ignorance. I provided a few definitions at the link above from reputable publications which you obviously did not bother to read.  Here are a few more though, if you actually want to learn a thing or two http://grammar.about.com/od/pq/g/primaryterm.htm.  Primary sources are contemporary in time.  That is their fundamental state of being.  This is known by scholars and researchers all over the world, so you unfortunately betray yourself as a layman unsuited to this particular debate.  Incidentally, WP:PRIMARY states the same thing as all these other sources and does not agree with you at all.  And I quote: "are often accounts written by people who are directly involved."  Notice the word often, so no, WP:PRIMARY does not say that a priamry source has to be from an individual actually affiliated with a company as in the examples you give above.  Newspaper articles reporting on events, for instance, are always considered primary sources even though the reporter is frequently not connected to the organization or event he may be reporting on.    Therefore, your contribution in this debate is unhelpful at best and harmfully misleading at worst.  You should not really bandy about votes like "speedy close" when you are completely clueless as to the arguments and terms being bandied about. Now, reviews can be considered secondary sources it is true with the original work of art being the primary source, so there is some room for debate here, just not in the way you frame it. In the scholarly world, a book review of another person's research, for example, would be a secondary source.  I am honestly not sure if this applies to an opinion piece on a game, however, since they usually just report on the reviewer's experience playing.  It is possible they do count, but its a slightly different track. Indrian (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, primary sources do not work that way. Wikipedia's definition of a "primary source" is a "source connected with the subject", it has nothing to do with time. It does not matter what About.com (which, by the way, is not a reliable source) or even what the University of North Texas says; the only thing that matters here is what Wikipedia's definition of the term is. Wikipedia does not treat "newspaper articles...reporting on events" as primary sources, those are secondary sources. I'm sorry you have such a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia's definition of primary sources work, but it's clear from your comments that you do. A review by IGN, even if it's released before the game even hits the street, is not a primary source; it is a secondary source. Now, not all secondary sources are reliable sources, but that's a completely different thing from primary vs. secondary. Which is, for 'primary source', through the useage of the term in phrasing and practice, by everyone on Wikipedia but you, is "a source directly connected with the subject", while for secondary source it is "a source not directly connected with the subject", with time-from-event being utterly irrelevant. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at the relevant section for primary sources it says Primary sources are very close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources. The nominator is free to disagree with this but this is currently how Wikipedia defines primary sources and an IGN review does not meet the criteria for a primary source. If the nominator wants to try to change the defination Wikipedia uses they are free to do so but that will need a larger venue than a single AFD.--70.49.81.140 (talk) 03:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. IGN and Gamespot reviews are secondary sources, and sufficient to establish notability. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - The notion that somehow reviews from some of the biggest, most mainstream video game websites don't count as sources that satisfy the WP:GNG is absolutely ridiculous. Then there's the fact that I know this game was covered in print magazines in the 90's as well, it's not like this is some sort of non-notable flash game or something like that. At the very least Gamepro provided coverage on it. Easily meets the GNG.  Sergecross73   msg me   13:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Coverage from AllGame as well. Sergecross73   msg me   13:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - the NOM appears to be misconstruing the meaning of primary, somehow transposing an example and policy. Take a further look at WP:OR and its footnotes and the included links. Review articles are cited as being a very typical secondary source. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep/Close per rationales already given. Again, the sources are not primary. --Teancum (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that this should be closed however the reviews should be added into a reception section (the IGN and GameSpot reviews at least, and possibly the Game Pro one if someone has access to old issues). I would do so myself for the online reviews but I am not very good at formatting references so I would feel more comfortable if someone else did so.--70.49.81.140 (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Major console video games are routinely considered notable. Not to mention a quick Google Search shows a lot of reasonable, reliable sources. Cyan  Gardevoir  (used EDIT!) 09:09, 26 July 2012 (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.