Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reaping The Dungeon


 * 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. Boston put it best: "notabilityness is not adequate". –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  05:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Reaping The Dungeon

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Extremely nonnotable piece of old software. Article has been tagged as not establishing notability or having reliable sources etc. for more than a year. Was another article prodded but had the prod removed by a serial deprodder who never gives any adequate reasons for removing the tag. DreamGuy (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable early DOS computer games released 1993. Esasus (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Instead of just insisting that every article you see with a delete tag on it is notable, perhaps for once you'd like to offer an actual reason why... and one that follows actual Wikipedia criteria? DreamGuy (talk) 03:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment to DreamGuy - it is improper to remove the references contained in an article while the discussion is still in progress.Esasus (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The reference in question is there twice needlessly. --Boston (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * First, MobyGames consists of user-generated content and is hence not considered a reliable source. Second, placing it as an external link under the References section makes it very hard for readers to determine whether an article is sourced or not. That's why we use inline citations for this exact reason! MuZemike 00:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - For once I'll agree with Esasus. This has historical value, it's not an advert and you're not going to find many sources for it other than the one or two already given. § FreeRangeFrog 00:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you can find other sources, you're just very unlikely to find them online. Games prior to 1997 tend to have better coverage in print sources than online ones, as the later internet sources don't tend to go back to cover older products. -- Sabre (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And here I chucked my entire collection of PC Magazine back issues a few years ago... back when it had more than 10 paper pages! Real paper I tell you! § FreeRangeFrog 00:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as notability must be shown; notabilityness is not adequate. One source only is given, twice.  I encourage the expansion of references and might change my opinion to "Keep" if the article is improved.--Boston (talk) 00:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Userfy Notability is not the issue. If the game was indeed released widely, it's clearly notable. The issue lies with the lack of sources and the difficulty to get any. I recommend someone to contact Newspapers and magazines request service if they think they can get sources out of it. I'd be happy to give this the benefit of the doubt and leave it in userspace for 2-3 months for sources to be found because it's very unlikely to be something promotional. - Mgm|(talk) 09:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is the issue as I don't see it established that the game was widely distributed. I agree that we should be somewhat lenient in regards to proof required, but currently the sole source provides is basically a wiki/blog. --Boston (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Unionsoap (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment here is the game creator's website Probably worth keeping. Kagetto (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete due to the lack of coverage in reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2009 (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.