Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wizard Sniffer


 * 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 merge‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Interactive fiction or a subsection thereof as a viable ATD Star   Mississippi  17:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The Wizard Sniffer

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The game was deproded with the rationale that it won awards, but this has no bearing on notability. It lacks significant coverage from reliable sources to justify and fill out a standalone article. It cites clearly user-generated reviews in the vast majority of the reception section rather than actual critics. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Yeah, there's not really anything else to add. The game isn't notable, and I don't see why it should have got deproded. λ Negative  MP1  18:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep The game won five XYZZY Awards and won two awards in the 2017 Interactive Fiction Competition, which are the two most notable competitions for this type of work, and thus distinguishes itself in its genre. The genre is obscure which accounts for the sparse supply of sources. If the subject does not warrant its own article then redirect to Interactive_fiction to preserve history instead of deleting. --Bensin (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ... and as for sources, I added the review in The Short Game, which adding to Sarah Laskow's and Lynda Clark's reviews, totals the number to three in addition to the three at the Interactive Fiction Database. No sources contradict eachother. --Bensin (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Short Game does not appear to be a reliable source. In fact it admits that it is fan run, with one person in the About Us being "the only person with any real credentials", something that is obvious even from a quick browse of the site. This is not the kind of sourcing we want on Wikipedia. The ability to tell whether a source is reliable is required, as well as being able to judge what topic needs an article, and your recent articles have been less than stellar. For example, Clue (information)? Wikipedia is not a dictionary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nor are the articles static. I can't see your username in the history of Clue (information). If you are certain you know its flaws you are welcome to add to it and improve it. The Short Game has made content for over 10 years, and has produced over 400 episodes which all appear to be around one hour each. If they lacked credentials in reviewing games when then started, one can hardly say they lack experience now. Their body of work makes them pretty much experts, and they are certainly more experts than any junior reviewer writing for a large media corporation. --Bensin (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Their body of work makes them experts" there are many unreliable sources with a large body of work listed at WP:Perennial sources such as the Daily Mail, being long-running does not really have a bearing on reliability. But even if we assumed it counted as SIGCOV, that's only one piece of SIGCOV which is insufficient to pass GNG.
 * I am not sure if there is anything to improve there as the concept of a "clue" is not notable. If you think it is, you offered no real proof in that regard. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You yourself considered Atlas Obscura to be SIGCOV, until I added the reference to The Short Game. Then you edited your statement above with an edit comment without rationale. (It would have been better had you instead added a new post where you transparently stated that you had changed your mind and explained why, rather than editing an existing post to make it seem like that was your stance all along.) There's also the review by Lynda Clark. That makes three SIGCOV in addition to the rest of the sources, which all corroborate each other. Interactive fiction is a small art form and sources are inherently hard to come by, even for a game like this that won both of the two most prominent competitions for interactive fiction. If you still think sourcing is a problem, then I suggest you add at the top of the article so it can be improved upon rather than deleted. Or request sources for any statement in the article that you think is unsourced and that a reader cannot verify and assess themselves (hint: there aren't any).
 * Regarding Clue (information) (a central concept in many games throughout history), feel free to improve it directly or point out weaknesses on that article's talk page. But that article is not relevant to this discussion here. --Bensin (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete Zero WP:SIGCOV. 🍕  Boneless Pizza! 🍕 (🔔) 04:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Had there been zero significant coverage, I would have agreed with you, and I would not have created the article. But that is simply not the case. --Bensin (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect or merge to Interactive fiction. Buster Hudson appears to be a relatively known author by the sources. IgelRM (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If it's not going to be mentioned in the interactive fiction article, a redirect would not be very helpful. (And I doubt it should, the whole "notable works" section is already verging on listcruft). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There is only a handful of IF games that is in the intersection of winning both IFC and XYZZY and they are worth mentioning. --Bensin (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla  Ohhhhhh, no! 20:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge or redirect to Interactive_fiction as an alternative to deletion. I think it's just below notability. Atlas Obscura is a reliable source per WP:AOARTICLES and although Medium.com is generally unreliable per WP:MEDIUM, I think Clark qualifies as a "subject matter expert" since she is listed as "PhD Researcher in Interactive Fiction at Nottingham Trent University". Interactive Fiction Competition might be a notable award, but the fact it won doesn't alone count towards notability, it needs some coverage to go along with it. I just think two pieces of SIGCOV is not enough for notability. --Mika1h (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Mika1h and Bensin. I changed my vote to Delete as I find no notability, and the small mention that it gets in Interactive fiction is enough.  MK  at your service.  12:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate on why you agree to a mention in the article Interactive fiction but oppose a redirect to that article? --Bensin (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I just meant that it doesn't need to be redirected to the article. It's mentioned in the Interactive fiction and I feel thats enough.  MK  at your service.  05:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't follow. Is there a reason why you think there should not be a redirect from The Wizard Sniffer to Interactive fiction? If there is a redirect, the edit history is preserved and the article can be easily improved by anyone if new sources emerge. If the article is deleted, there's a risk that someone not familiar with the process of undeleting articles will start from scratch rather than building on what already exists. --Bensin (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I think one or two sentences about Hudson can be incorporated on Interactive fiction based on the Atlas Obscura article. I partially did not say delete as preserving edit history may be convenient. IgelRM (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

It would be helpful if other participants commented on the replies to their arguments above. --Bensin (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2024 (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.