Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Good Gofers


 * 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.  Sandstein  10:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

No Good Gofers

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. I also tried the Internet Archive search which has in the past shown to contain some trade magazine reviews for some pinballs, but I got no hits for this one." The prod was removed with no meaningful rationale, the article was not improved, months have passed... AfD time. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  06:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  06:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep The machine was from a famous manufacturer, had a production run of thousands and so is covered in the numerous books covering pinball such as The Complete Pinball Book, The PinBotz Guide to the Greatest Pinball Machines, &c. There are lots of details and credits here and so the hard facts are well-covered.  There's plenty of reviews out there too and so policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."  But we don't have a deadline for this and AfD is not cleanup.  The worst case would be merger to another page such as Williams or Pat Lawlor and so, per policy WP:PRESERVE, there's no case for deletion. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , How is the Internet Pinball Database reliable? It seems user-generated "The data in this database has been laboriously gathered by the Editors over many years, from books, photographs, flyers, web sites, pinball manufacturers, collectors' personal records, and of course the pinball machines themselves. Most of the actual photographs in the database came from various collectors – over 2,665 different contributors to date." And if you found coverage in a book, please cite a page number and number of paragraphs, to ensure that we are not dealing with a passing mention in a half-sentence. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete for lacking notability. No sources I could find from reliable publications or on sites like Archive.org. Namcokid  47  18:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per Namcokid47's findings and the nom. I also checked the books Andrew mentions: The latter of the two includes the game in a listicle with merely a handful of sentences and bullet points, not significant coverage. I don't have access to the other, I'm assuming that it looks similar (and one source is not sufficient either way). IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 12:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep/Merge It very much feels like we should have an article that mentions this. In a good world we'd have a few dozen of these for the "barely/nearly notable" machines.  This one isn't huge but  is a reliable and independent review.   in reliable but not independent. There is other evidence that the game is notable (it's in ).  This is the kind of thing we should have a few paragraphs on as part of a larger topic.  And it's the kind of thing that Wikipedia's notability guidelines don't handle real well.  Is it notable?  Yeah, one good source I can find and I suspect some of the relevant books mentioned by Andrew have more and other sources that push it over the bar in any case.  Should it be it's own article?  Not in my opinion.  Better handled as part of a list article. Hobit (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear, there are tons of reviews of this game, but only one I'd call independent and reliable that I can find. If Andrew is right, The Complete Pinball Book or "Complete Pinball" cover this game (and I'd be surprised if they didn't), we have enough. I can't find electronic copies of those books however.   Hobit (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Classic Game Room doesn't seem reliable, and neither does the TNT Amusements one. They don't seem to have any editorial background or anything that is required for a source to be considered reliable. Neither these or Andrew's brief mentions are enough to make an article. Namcokid  47  17:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure what Classic Game Room is (my bad for not including names with each link), but you'd agree the stuff from papa.org is reliable and independent? TNT one seems quite reliable--their job is to sell pinball machines and they are apparently good at it.  But yeah, not independent I'd guess.  This week in pinball has a fair number of hits on this game, but none particularly detailed.  As I said, it seems notable--certainly experts in the field are quite aware of it. And there is tons to write about given just the papa and TNT stuff.  Hobit (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am using a script (User:Headbomb/unreliable) that flags unreliable sources (even in forms of links here), and it did flag both of your links as 'generally unreliable'. That said, this probably is because both of those are on YouTube. In general, we all know that when the best sources are video, we are scratching the bottom of the proverbial barrel... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * To flag something unreliable because it is published on Youtube I think is a mistake. The question is if the organization posting the material meets our sourcing requirements. That it is cheaper, easier, and gains more exposure to publish on Youtube rather than one's own site doesn't seem like it should be part of our equation. But I do agree, we can't take just anything on Youtube and identifying reliable, independent sources is harder (both for scripts and people) when Youtube is involved... Hobit (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I actually agree that we tend to dismiss video sources too much. Part of it is that they are difficult to verify (can't CTRL+F inside, although this may change as the AI auto-script becomes better). Anyway, I think the review you found is relatively reliable, but if it is the best source we have, I think we are still on the wrong side of borderline here. But trying to see what can be salvaged, perhaps some merge and redirect to Pat Lawlor might work? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * YouTube is now my goto place for tutorials about non-academic topics such as DIY, motoring and other practical needs. For example, like many people I've been wondering about getting an electric car.  Traditional mass media such as newspapers and networks is mostly lightweight entertainment like Top Gear while the motoring press tends to require subscriptions or purchase of hard-copy magazines.  So, to get informed I've been watching YouTube where, for example, authorities like Sandy Munro are so impressive in their analysis that I started that article about him.  For this topic, I watched a review.  The presenter is clearly an expert and, as he demonstrates the machine, the facts mostly speak for themselves.  As a source, this is more reliable than most journalism.  Traditional journalism is dying and the new media is taking over.  We should adjust our expectations accordingly. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please take off the tinfoil hat. Namcokid  47  23:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , And the place to make this argument, to which you may be surprised to hear, I am not totally unsympathetic, would be the talk page of Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nom, fails WP:GNG, no reliable sources found CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per Piotrus' arguments, mainly the ones in reply to Andrew Davidson. When the book citations are located, the article could be started again I suppose. — Alalch Emis (talk) 03:15, 11 April 2021 (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.