Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Val d'Isère Skiing and Snowboarding (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. Decided against a third relst; a third nomination of this article might be needed. (non-admin closure)  J 947  05:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Val d'Isère Skiing and Snowboarding
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Like Club Drive, this article was brought to AfD and closed as keep under shaky circumstances back in 2010 (see WP: Articles for deletion/Club Drive (2nd nomination)), and is due for reconsideration. Similar problems apply: No claim to notability, no sources, and the only hint of coverage is unsourced scores from two Atari-specific sites. My own researches on the era have turned up nothing on the game beyond the obligatory GamePro review. --Martin IIIa (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep as passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth (reviews) sources from contemporary magazines, as listed here. I don't have access to the magazines with those exact dates and IA doesn't seem to have most archived either. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I'm even less impressed by the Mobygames listing for this game than the one for Attack of the Mutant Penguins. It actually adds to the body of evidence that this game is not notable. Only nine reviews, and when you cross off the ones from unreliable and/or foreign language sources, all you're left with is Diehard Gamefan and the obligatory GamePro review. --Martin IIIa (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NONENG allows non-English sources and that is not a valid deletion reason. I see contemporary printed magazines with editorial staff. I sort of understand your position, but I don't agree the available sources are insufficient for GNG. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NONENG allows non-English sources for citing facts, not for establishing notability. A notable subject should have lots of sources in the same language; having one or two sources each in lots of languages just establishes that the subject was released in lots of different countries. In some cases being released in many countries might suggest notability, but not for a first party video game. Again, I don't see the level of contemporary coverage one would expect from a notable or even significant game. There are unreleased games which got more reviews than this.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG literally says "in any language". — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking at it in context, it's not completely unambiguous that the part of the GNG you're talking about is saying that non-English sources establish notability on English Wikipedia in every possible case. But more importantly, linking to a policy page without addressing my reasoning is not convincing.--Martin IIIa (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Based on GamePro, GameFan, VG, and VG&CE reviews alone (if MG is to be trusted), we could support a small article on this topic. It doesn't necessitate that we should, but deletion still wouldn't be the best choice. Discuss redirect options? Perhaps it would be worth creating a page on Atari sports games where topics like this can redirect? czar  21:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess at this point I have to come right out and say that, while I realize this is not a popular view, I've never felt that the probable existence of sources "out there" is anywhere near as strong an argument for keeping an article as actually having content cited to notable/reliable sources in the article. It just seems like an indirect way of challenging the editor(s) favoring deletion to prove a negative. I have no idea what a worthwhile redirect for this article would be. Atari sports games doesn't strike me as a topic that we could write much about, though I'm no expert on Atari history.--Martin IIIa (talk) 22:10, 3 March 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.