Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skull & Crossbones


 * 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. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 06:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Skull & Crossbones

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Tagged for sources since 2012, none forthcoming. Fails WP:GNG. ukexpat (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. 1980s video games often are more thoroughly sources in print media than in content currently searchable online. The reliability of the International Arcade Museum's Killer List of Video Games is debatable, but this has an entry there. This German-language book mentions it at least briefly, as does this Russian book about video game sound effects. I'm not really qualified to evaluate either work. Beyond that, additional coverage in Coin Slot Magazine (for the arcade version) and any of several periodicals covering NES gaming seems plausible. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI, KLOV is a reliable source per WP:VG/S. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  15:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: I fixed the mobygames link to the page, added the arcade cabinet manual (on archive.org), and I was able to find a few sources of varying quality online if someone would like to put it into the page: Reviews:   Other stuff:  &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  01:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Source reliability check—Source 1, Atari Times, is patently unreliable, user-submitted. Source 2, The Video Game Critic, is self-published and has been deemed unreliable. Source 3, Honestgamers, is similarly part-time and has no fact-checking editorial policy. Source 4 is an official listing for a print magazine, so okay. And Source 5, a Gamasutra feature, is of course okay, though the subject only has a blurb. czar ⨹   04:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * keep-I actually use to own a copy I found but since it didn't work...anyway it is notable even if obscure. Wgolf (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Harder to find sources for games of this age, but there are plenty of reviews (via Amiga mag rack) for the C64/Amiga ports of the game. More than enough there in those print sources to suffice for the general notability guideline and to build suitable gameplay and reception sections. czar ⨹   04:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:28, 26 March 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.