Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wacky Waiters


 * 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  k eep. - Mailer Diablo 05:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Wacky Waiters

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable video game. Expired prod removed by User:NYC JD with the comment "deprod. 1982 video game published by notable publisher - worth an AfD". The article remains an unreferenced stub, containing nothing in the way of notability for the game. There is no information on innovative features, high sales or other large popularity, industry awards, authors, new programming techniques, or so on. Mikeblas 12:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 13:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep notable game by a notable publisher. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain why you feel this is a notable game? Most of the comments here are on the verge of WP:ILIKEIT or are speculative at best. Burntsauce 20:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I've added a reference from a major UK computer magazine, a link to the game's manual and a cover image. Lack of information or article quality is not a good reason for deletion. --Canley 15:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The link to the manual is nice, but it's self-referential and self-produced and doesn't establish notability. The magazine reference is trivial, and does not establish notability, either. -- Mikeblas 02:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment That's true, but bear in mind that WP:N is a guideline, not a policy, and I think we all know that this game would have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published references/reviews back in 1982, but not surprisingly VIC-20 magazines from that era are hard to find on the Internet. This is clearly a mass-market game (it was released in Australia as well as the UK and US), and the information in the article is verifiable at least. --Canley 03:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are plenty of things which happened before the advent of the Internet which are well-referenced. The reason? They're truly notable, unlike the subject of this article. An aggressive marketing campaign with widespread distribution is not a criteria of notability. The difference between a policy and a guideline is that a guideline has room for "occasional exceptions" -- not classes of exceptions, which you're apparently prepared to allow -- and a policy doesn't. -- Mikeblas 03:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - a video game that achieves widespread release should generally have its own article, at least if it had any reviews in mainstream computer/video game magazines of that era. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * keep' - Virtually any brick-and-mortar published video game from this era is inherently notable. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Question. Can you point me to a policy, or even a guideline, that establishes the inherent notability" of video games from this era? Also, I'd appreciate it if you could tell me which eras include games that have been established as inherently notable, and which eras have been identified as not inherently notable. Thank you! -- Mikeblas 14:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Answer: I am aware of no such chronological criteria, and I doubt if one will be adopted. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't see a need to delete a game from a major console of it's era. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - You may see a need if you read through WP:N. -- Mikeblas 02:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Everything has been moved to "Wacky Waiters" Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:31, 26 March 2007 (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.