Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scratchware Manifesto


 * 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  07:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Scratchware Manifesto

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Only forums. Fails WP:GNG.  SITH   (talk)   13:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  13:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. A search in Google Books turns up a surprising number of mentions (e.g. here in "History of Digital Games: Developments in Art, Design and Interaction"). I think there's enough out there to support notability. The article just needs some more references, and some rewriting to achieve a more neutral tone. Delete without prejudice toward it being re-created. On closer inspection, I'm finding it difficult to find multiple instances of WP:SIGCOV. There are indeed multiple results in Google Books and Google Scholar, but (beyond the 'History of Digital Games' ref I linked above) it's not clear if any are reliable and significant. e.g. "Aesthetics and Radical Politics" has some significant coverage, but appears to come from an unreliable publisher. If someone is motivated to re-create this article and willing to put in some time, I think there's a good chance they could find sources satisfying WP:GNG, but I'm giving up on putting in more time to do so. Current article is skeletal, unsourced (but for the one I added), and has major POV issues, so WP:BLOWITUP. Colin M (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:GNG and entirely unsourced. We need more than mentions to build an article. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 04:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:GNG, I wasn’t able to find any dedicated 3rd party coverage, nor does the sole keep !vote provide sufficient evidence to meet it. Sergecross73   msg me  16:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you saw, but I cited a book in my keep vote which discusses the subject. Do you think it's not a reliable, independent source? If so, could you explain why? I was also able to find mentions on Google Scholar. For example, in this article: http://gamestudies.org/1601/articles/gardagrabarczyk. Based on a preliminary examination, Game Studies appears to me to be a legit journal with editorial oversight - its board of reviewers and editorial board include representation from respected universities. Colin M (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Your initial comment supplied 1 example. 1 source isn’t enough to meet the WP:GNG. Beyond that, it was just a brief passing mention in the book - just a brief paragraph before moving on. It’s kind of iffy as to whether or not that constitutes significant coverage on the topic. Haven’t reviewed your second source yet, but two still cutting it pretty low, especially considering the quality of the first one... Sergecross73   msg me  17:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I would somewhat dispute characterising the book source as a passing mention - it's invoked in the title of the section, and seems to be a core topic throughout pages 215-216. But the second source I cited above is a passing mention (though one that ascribes some significance to the Manifesto), so it's true, I haven't found 2+ totally solid references combining with WP:SIGCOV. Given the borderline notability and poor current state of the article, I'm starting to lean more towards WP:BLOWITUP. Colin M (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2019 (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.