Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summer Session


 * 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. Nja 247 18:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Summer Session

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

Non-notable game. Remurmur (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MLauba (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yeah, probably. Could you elaborate on the places where you've looked for sources and the other ways you've checked that this article is not in need of improvement but irredeemable within reasonable limits? --Kiz o r  21:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no GameFAQs page, the game was not rated by the ESRB, and the creator has a Deviant Art page. But really, just a quick glance at the official webpage should be enough to tell you that it's an amateur venture.--Remurmur (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * While it's certainly an amateur venture that's not a guarantee of non-notability, but it does mean that checking for things like ERSB ratings etc. isn't going to produce the relevant results. Someoneanother 00:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone another's got a point, Counter-Strike was an amateur venture... --Kiz o r  05:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * However, Counter-Strike was not self-published.--Remurmur (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no ESRB rating because it's not a retail game - the latest titles on Big Fish Games don't have ESRB ratings either. The link you've posted is not the official webpage, but an affiliate seller, the official webpage is here. And what possible difference does it make if a game has an affiliate that also has a deviantart account? A better argument for deletion is that there's not really anything interesting in the wikipedia article itself, it's practically just an ad. - AmethystPhoenix (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Play This Thing! review (Greg Costikyan again), full-sized review on Game Tunnel and a huge wibbling article on Game Set Watch. Lovely jubbly. Someoneanother 01:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * None of which are major enough news sources to count as "significant coverage" per WP:N.--Remurmur (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment the building consensus on Game Tunnel and GameSetWatch seems to indicate that these two are acceptable sources under the Wikiproject VideoGames sources list. On the other side, the presence (or lackthereof) of a GameFAQs page has absolutely no bearing on this discussion. MLauba (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by major, independent games are a corner of the gaming spectrum with their own corner of gaming journalism to which all of these sites belong. IGN and GameSpot don't make a habit of reviewing small-scale indie games any more than Fast Car Magazine runs features on caravans. Emily Short's piece has been reprinted on Gamasutra (see here), which is on the reliable sources list. Costikyan's site and personal opinions are relevant due to his background. Game Tunnel, at that time, was run by Russell Carroll who is now a game producer for Reflexive Entertainment, again relevant to this area. Someoneanother 15:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Borderline Keep per SomeoneAnother. Costikyan, Game Tunnel and GameSetWatch, makes three independent sources which aren't being challenged for reliability under the Wikiproject Video Games at present. Passes inclusion threshold in my book. MLauba (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - the quality of the coverage linked to above is satisfactory. Integration into a "critical reception" section is required, natch. Marasmusine (talk) 13:02, 24 April 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.