Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Soccer Manager


 * 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Ultimate Soccer Manager

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources &#32;DocumentError (talk) 07:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  09:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  09:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone  09:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 09:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep this was one of the most famous soccer management games of the 1990s - let me see what I can do to save this. SportingFlyer  T · C  12:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * All I've found online so far is this review, a mention in a Dutch book on video games, a Stuff list saying it was the 25th best soccer video game of all time and two newspaper clippings showing it was in the top 10 best-selling video games in Australia in 1997, for I think a week. However the internet won't be the best place for searching for notability as this was a 90s game that I'm certain would have been reviewed in other major sources similar to the Independent. SportingFlyer  T · C  12:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * the problem is that this article is not about one game, but the whole series. It mistakenly calls new games as "versions", which isn't true. First ref is just about the last game, Stuff is about the first game, etc. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment This content can be encyclopedic if could cite more indepent source, i think there are some reference out there on GnewsLynndonald (talk) 13:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Ultimate Soccer Manager 98 (DSF Fussball Manager 98 in Germany) is absolutely notable, finding at least 4 reviews for it, (mentioned above), , , but the series as whole (what this article is about) was never covered and thus not notable per WP:GNG, so I am leaning to delete here. If needed, any entry could have its own Wikipedia article separately. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm still a keep - I'm sure you'd find reviews for the earlier games if you look in the right spots, and we also group games together by series when they're not individually notable enough for their own article: see Front Page Sports Football. SportingFlyer  T · C  11:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Draftify I found a review of the original title, it's hard to believe there aren't more out there. People who are better at finding sources should at least be given some months to do just that.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Draftify - I think that is the best option. It was always going to be difficult to find online sources for this game. Draftifying would at least give someone the chance to find offline sources should they wish to. Spiderone  21:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Draftifying doesn't make sense. This article has been on the website since 2004, only six years after the last edition of the game. Draftifying works best with articles that are WP:TOOSOON that will be notable soon, or newly created articles that were moved into mainspace too quickly, where there's an author willing to work on them. Draftifying this will likely ensure its deletion, considering sources exist but are difficult to find. I've added two older magazine reviews to the article - a look at MobyGames shows there are more out there. SportingFlyer  T · C  13:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a difficult one. I think we all know that the topic is notable but proving it is a different matter. Might be one of those rare times when we should just WP:IGNOREALLRULES and keep it. Spiderone  16:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   15:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete while the individual games might be notable on their own, the series as a whole has not received coverage. This article can become a standalone article for the original game if enough sources (like reviews) are found for the game. I do not support draftify because I do not see how the series' notability will change in a few months. Z1720 (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We typically cover video game series as a whole without requiring them to be covered as a series. That's not a reason for deletion. See other examples, for instance Front Page Sports Football, World Basketball Manager, Out of the Park Baseball, Football Manager. There's also proof of sources existing in the form of reviews here, here, here, and here. SportingFlyer  T · C  00:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am still keeping my delete opinion because I don't think the other stuff exists argument is valid in this case. The notability of the series is in question for this AfD and I don't think there is enough coverage of the series to justify keeping the article as is. Also, Mobygames is considered unreliable on WP:VG/RS (this wikilink also lists reliable sources pertaining to video games.) Z1720 (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You've misunderstood both of my arguments. I'm not saying this is notable because those are notable. I'm showing we frequently discuss video game series in one article, without requiring the entire series to be notable, as a way of consolidating articles. Also, I'm not saying this is notable because it has an article on Mobygames. I'm saying there are multiple reviews on the Mobygames page which can be used to show notability and develop the article further. SportingFlyer  T · C  16:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: third times the charm

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Mobygames aggregator links above are sufficient—multiple major reviews for each game and when considered together, sufficient for an overview article. Instead of separate articles for each game, use this one to build sections in summary style. Draftify doesn't make sense in cases like this. Expert source searchers are not going to arbitrarily come out of the woodwork in the next several months. Ask a noticeboard and you'll get some bites, but otherwise drafifying rarely makes sense unless someone is explicitly asking to work on it in isolation. (not watching, please )  czar  09:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Great discussion. I would much prefer to keep and improve rather than delete. The arguments of czar and SportingFlyer carry the day in my mind.--Concertmusic (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Kolma8 (talk) 11:08, 16 December 2020 (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.