Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Burnout


 * 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.  So Why  06:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Super Burnout

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested WP: PROD. No reason was provided by the contesting editor, so I'll just copy-and-paste my rationale from the prod: Fails to meet WP: NGAMES. The article gives no indication of importance, and of the four cited sources, two are simple database information from the same fan site, and two are fan discussion forums. Martin IIIa (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: MobyGames lists 12 reviews for this game including ones from reliable sources such as GamePro and Electronic Gaming Monthly: --Mika1h (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mika1h. Newimpartial (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not all of the review publications listed at MobyGames qualify as notable/reliable sources; of that list of 12, I count only five that could be added to the article, and that's assuming all the reviews actually exist (MobyGames uses user-generated content). Moreover, as I've said before at AfD, 1990s GamePro reviews don't help establish notability, since at that time GamePro reviewed every single game that was released in North America. Finally, to back away for a moment from the tallying of reviews, Super Burnout is one of the most obscure games on one of the most obscure consoles ever released. It was released in minuscule quantities, got a few mediocre reviews, and disappeared without being noticed by anyone outside the hardcore gaming community. It seems a poor basis for an article.--Martin IIIa (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: I'd contest the idea that this game is entirely unnotable; I'm currently doing an article for E3 1995, and several contemporary outlets reported on it at the time. Additionally, the existence of print media discussing this game, even if not immediately available, means this article is very likely notable and merely lacking proper citations. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Atari Jaguar games as useful search term. I'd only "keep" this if someone has actual proof of sourcing, as right now it has none. Martin's right on MobyGames—most of those 12 are unreliable sources. If the GamePro review is a few sentences and the other sources (EGM, Video Games, Game Players) are only in physical magazine archives, we have no content with which to write an article and cannot fulfill WP:V. Mentions in passing in E3 1995 write-ups has the same issue. Show some actual sourcing and I'd be happy to change my mind, but faith that the content surely must exist somewhere is an argument to avoid. czar  22:17, 10 June 2017 (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.