Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rescue! (2nd nomination)


 * 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. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  14:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Rescue!
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Deleted a couple of days ago, re-created with two sources: the author's own website, and a paragraph in a review of a genre (so the source is not primarily about the subject). The article says "little print" was expended but it was "immensely popular" - no obvious citation is given for this assertion. The author of the article asserts that this is unambiguous evidence of meeting WP:GNG, I am not seeing it myself. Guy (Help!) 16:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: The reference in question is certainly more than "a paragraph", and the game leads off the article. And what's the hurry here, do did read the check in note, right? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 01:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources addressing the subject in detail to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. The two sources offered are WP:PRIMARY in one case and WP:UNRELIABLE in the other, the latter source having been published by game publisher with no clear reputation for fact-checking and editorial control.  Msnicki (talk) 02:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * How can you possibly declare one of the UK's better known game reviewers as UNRELIABLE? Evans-Thirlwell has, literally, hundreds of articles about gaming published around the world in leading gaming magazines and even major newspapers. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The question isn't whether this game publisher is well known or whether the author of the article has published elsewhere. The question is whether this particular source is a WP:Reliable source as we define the term.  So far as I can tell, it is not.  If you think I'm wrong, take the question to WP:RSN; if you get a consensus there that this is a reliable source, I will accept it.  But I don't think that's what they'll decide.  Msnicki (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent suggestion. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. This quite literally just came out of AfD and (at the very least) warranted a discussion before unilaterally overturning it. I asked for Maury's sources on the talk page and was told that the Kotaku section was "all this article really needs". I still haven't heard back on the German magazine citation, but I see no reason to buy that the Kotaku section (even in addition to whatever German mag is procured) constitutes significant coverage. This waste of time could have been avoided with just a little forward consideration. what's the hurry here—if there's no hurry, leave drafts in draftspace and we wouldn't be here? – czar   03:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I have received word that the game is also on the cover of a MacFormat issue from 1994 (and I suspect the German reference is a reprint of this). I am tracking down that issue by emailing all the contemporary editors. The article consists of an entire column in the magazine which gave the game a rave review, a front-page mention (under the name "Star Trek", amusingly) along with the game itself on the CD.

But apparently we're now onto the part of the AfD where we invoke varied definitions of SIGCOV and start questioning everyone's GF. The best part is the attempt to turn the tables and blame me for this problem. What's, it's my fault you deleted this without even the slightest effort to contact any of the involved editors? Maybe you could have saved yourself all this precious time had you applied a little of that "forward consideration"?

No wonder less pig-headed editors than I are abandoning the project in droves.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Maury, your enthusiasm for it is not in doubt, but this is a game that has essentially left no trace. This is no Elite. Guy (Help!) 15:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Burden's on you to present sources, Maury, especially if you're overturning a consensus. But you know that. The mudslinging is unnecessary. – czar   17:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fascinating, now I'm a time waster and mudslinger. In any event, the magazine article was not a version of MacFormat as I thought, but a US magazine, and has been added. I am now awaiting the MacFormat article as well, but as that magazine does not have an archive (can you believe it?) I have tracked down someone that has a copy in their garage and is sending scans to me as soon as he can find it. That will be three significant mentions in different formats, at least two of then dead-tree which the wiki seems to value more highly. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you share the scan of the Electronic Entertainment October 1994 citation? – czar   22:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - Unless further sources arise, I'm not convinced what is currently present makes it meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73   msg me  13:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * More sources added Thanks to the help of another Wiki user, I have added a cite based on a lengthy (two pages printed) review from Inside Mac Games. That has been archived online, so feel free to read it. And in case anyone cares to check, yes, it's listed as an RS. The article now has three RS's, two of them online, so I can't wait to hear what the problem is now. Still waiting on the MacFormat too. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I respect your right to your opinion but I have mine also and I'm not persuaded. Even if Inside Mac Games is considered reliable today, I'm don't believe that means it was reliable then.  So far as I can tell, it was one guy publishing whatever he wanted.  I'm also unsure what you consider to be those other two WP:RS.  I note that your appeal at WP:RSN discussed above and archived here  went nowhere. Msnicki (talk) 03:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not my opinion that IMG is considered RS, it's a fact. If you "don't believe" it should be RS, then take it to RSN and get consensus to remove it from the list. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You haven't addressed my point. It may indeed be a RS now.  Who cares.  The question is whether it was a RS only two years into its being, at a time when clearly it was a self-published compendium of user contributions from an AOL forum as described in our article at Inside Mac Games.  I cannot imagine it could have qualified as an RS then.  If you actually draw some keep !votes based on this source, then maybe I'll take it to RSN for an opinion but I doubt that's going to be necessary.  I don't agree that your other sources are reliable, either.  I think you're still at zero.  Msnicki (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * IMG is RS until you get consensus otherwise on RSN. What you clearly and repeatedly state is your opinion and the product of your imagination is of no consequence, any more than mine is. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not true. RSN always considers the context of how the source is to be used. By "the list", I assume you mean WP:VG/RS's list of generally reliable sources. The mag was added without discussion many years ago and there is precedent for early versions of publications not showing reliability (most notably Kotaku). I'm genuinely surprised at your tone and read of policy throughout this thread (especially considering your complaint about rules earlier in this thread...) I've asked politely several times, so I'll make one final request for scans or photos of the offline/physical sources you've added. I assume good faith that you verified the direct source material yourself, but since we're at AfD, I'd like to verify the degree to which they constitute in-depth coverage, which I can't get from the small mentions alone. – czar   16:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "RSN always considers"
 * Then take it to RSN where it can be considered.
 * "there is precedent for early versions of publications not showing reliability"
 * This is also a precedent for actually reading the references before assuming they fail RS. The issue in question, which you can download yourself, contains a complete list of the over a dozen contributors and editors. This includes, among several well-known names in the Mac community, two of the most widely referenced game reviewers on this project, appearing in hundreds of articles.
 * "I've asked politely several times"
 * You asked exactly one time. And you did so above the part where it says "Please add new comments below this notice.", which is why I never saw it. But fine, ping my account.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I asked on the article talk page, in my first post on this page, in the post you mentioned, and in my last post. The download doesn't work on my computer. A clean copy of that page and the other refs would be appreciated. – czar   22:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, feel free to ping the email address attached to my account here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Any issues with the email? I have it in PNG format now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * What sources exist for the Gameplay section? – czar   16:40, 25 August 2015 (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.