Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swords of Chaos


 * 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. It appears that all the sources provided are merely trivial coverage. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 11:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Swords of Chaos

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Deprodded without comment. Concern is lack of sourcing — found only name-drops at best. Sources currently in the article consist of personal sites and blogs, which are patently unreliable. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand, you can see the whole story of this game, written by the author here : http://web.archive.org/web/20081226103143/http://www.visi.com/~spookshow/muinet.php

You can also see it's a real game because it is still being sold today : http://www.gameport.com/bbs/swordschaos.html

Of course there's isn't much more than this, that's an old game created around 1990, nobody wrote a book on it or something like that which we could use as a primary source. Back in the day, the internet was being formed, we were still connecting with modem, 1 server at a time so it's only logical that there's isn't much around on the internet. There has to be a way to keep the article, most old video games article are just like this one. I added 2 more URL in the External Links, hopefully it will help. Let me know what we can do so that we can improve the article, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zurd (talk • contribs) 04:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Zurd (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Those are not the kind of reliable sources we use. The fact that it is still exists is not in question. You'd have to have magazine/newspaper reviews of the game, for starters. If it is notable, surely someone said something about it. Notability is the issue. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I just thought about this, if you want a reliable source, connect to a BBS server and go play the game, you can find the release information, along with the author name and the date it was created along with each updates. It's hard to have a primary source better than this because it's right into the game, hard-coded. Which prove without a doubt that the game is real and it's not from a personal web site. Zurd (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That is not a reliable source by our standards. Again, the fact that the game exists is not in question. The source has to be independent of the game itself. Like a published review from a magazine or newspaper, for instance. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright, so it's not notable because not enough people played it/reviewed it or talked about it and thus it does not merit it's own page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability I'd hate to get rid of those pages as I really like those games and like the fact that's it's on wikipedia, available for all to see and they have external links which help people find the game, play it and they have screenshots, description, history, dates. That is all good information. Maybe I should just set up a blog and talk about it?! Zurd (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It is, although I'd really like to say that if the blog would not count as a reliable source that could show notability. I would also recommend that if you're interested in compiling information about older games, you might want to create a wiki on a site like Wikia about older games. It still wouldn't count as a RS, but it'd be a good alternative to Wikipedia since you could add whatever you like without fear of deletion. If you want to continue working on this entry in the hopes of it eventually gaining more notice in RS, we can always put a copy in your userspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually the idea of the blog is not that I would gain notability for the article, just the fact that I could add whatever I want without fear of being deleted. And it would be picked up by archive.org for eternity. I like wikipedia for the fact that every information is centralized here. Or I could maybe put it on Wikia, didn't know about that website before, maybe it's a better place to put the articles instead of a blog, I will have to check it more in details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zurd (talk • contribs) 05:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I just saved all the text and picture for the article Swords of Chaos and Toxic Ravine on my computer, will do something with that in the near future, either a blog or on Wikia since there's nothing I can do for not deleting those wonderful articles. Zurd (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You can use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Export to export the entire history of the article if you want that. Or since you did most of the writing, I guess that isn't necessary.  I see this article has already been copy and pasted in the past to different places, including the MUDpedia    D r e a m Focus  03:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * weak keep I've found at least three book references to this game, though none of them says much about it. Mangoe (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep The mentions of it in various books(Google book search for "Swords of Chaos" "Mark Peterson" for two of them) and the rest found show it was probably notable in its time. Nothing gained by deleting it.   D r e a m Focus  03:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Awesome, do I have to link to google book search for those 2 results in the External Links to gain notability for this article?
 * Link the books themselves. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Two references are now added which links to books, can we now gain notability for this article now ?Zurd (talk) 07:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I've enjoyed reading about old games from the early days of computers, and, facts are facts, most of the pre-Windows ones are going to be obscure. Notability proven to my satisfaction. Listmeister (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Awesome, can I delete the "deletion notice" and the 2 other notices? Zurd (talk) 07:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, leave it all up until an admin closes the discussion. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. I don't know. There have been three votes for keep and some attempts to source the article, but I'm not quite convinced that passing mentions in dated publications is sufficient. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 21:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Independent notability is not established. BBS Door games suffer from a lack of reliable secondary sourcing (early Flash games have similar troubles), and the effort to preserve their memory through WP is sometimes at odds with making an encyclopedia. But while the games tend to lack notability individually, they would have notability as a group. I've suggested a single "BBS Door games" (alternatively, a list) for elaborating on the era using the reliable sources that do exist. As for SoC, Ref1 and Ref4 are unreliable sources. Ref2 and Ref3 are passing mentions—not even an attempt to establish notability, and can't be the basis of a Keep argument. The sourcing isn't here, and I have yet to see an older, definitive print source on this topic that could apply here. czar   &middot;   &middot;  02:28, 14 April 2013 (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.