Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wonderful Dizzy


 * 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 redirect to Dizzy (series). Stifle (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Wonderful Dizzy

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT. Ref 1 is a non-independent official website, ref 3 (Vintage the New World) has an amateur about us page with only two currently active writers, failing WP:RS requirements, whereas ref 4 has no info on editorial policies and staff, failing WP:RS. Ref 2 is debatably RS, there was a RSN discussion, see Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 228, which ended inconclusively. However, it is a routine announcement providing a short two paragraph coverage of the newest Dizzy game, otherwise, it is a general overview of ZX Spectrum Next. My WP:BEFORE search found a routine announcement almost entirely quoted from a press release here (non-SIGCOV), review from Vintage is the New Old (non-RS), and an article here mainly covering mainly biographical information on Jarrod Bentley and only occasionally discusses the game (probably not SIGCOV). Update: Thanks for the news sources the article creator has provided. Unfortunately, this is yet another blog powered by Blogger, whereas this has an about us page but no editorial or correction policies. Sadly, IMO these fail WP:RS requirements. Therefore, IMO this should be redirected to Dizzy (series).  VickKiang  (talk)  01:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC) Hmmm. The first ref looks decent, but it's mostly an image gallery, the text has 189 words, but if the press-release quotes is removed it's just 90 words, which IMHO isn't SIGCOV. Also could you find any discussions about Flickering Myth? I could only find one in Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 228. On reliability, here it's well regarded according to a listicle by Vuelio (an iffy source), but Flickering Myth describes itself as a film blog. Many thanks!  VickKiang  (talk)  02:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  VickKiang   (talk)  01:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep seems to have coverage in gaming blog press     Andre🚐 02:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your vote! However, this is debatably SIGCOV and mainly covers Jarrod, this is a Wordpress blog (non-RS), this also is a blog, its home page states blog archive. Do you think these meet reliability guidelines? Many thanks!  VickKiang  (talk)  02:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * IMO the first is mostly about the game and seems legit enough, I agree the latter three are bloggy and may not be reliable. Andre🚐 02:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Yup, based on that discussion and my glance over it seems reliable. Boing Boing is also reliable. Andre🚐 02:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. One source owned by Boing Boing is just situational per WP:VG/RS, past discussions at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 241 and Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 259 with mixed consensus. Even if it's RS IMO it's non-SIGCOV but let's agree to disagree here. I think that in the discussio for Flickering Myth, just User:Darkknight2149 said it's RS, so the consensus is weak. Though, I disagree that both pieces are SIGCOV, but let's wait for more editors to join the discussion. Many thanks for your comments!  VickKiang  (talk)  02:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe some refs can be replaced with these new sources 1 2... Lanzlink   (talk)  02:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Dizzy (series) is one of the most successful British video game franchises in history. This game is the latest official game in the series (after 28 years), and probably will be the last official game because Codemasters (trademark owner) being purchased by EA in 2021.1 So, the article is worth keeping for history's sake. This article also appropriate according to WP:NVIDEOGAMES... Lanzlink  (talk)  04:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Lanzlink (talk • contribs)  is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep or merge I saw the same sources as Andre. They might not be enough to qualify but it's a legitimate part of a notable series and should be covered somewhere. Archrogue (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the series page. I generally consider a game having reviews the bar it has to pass unless it's an art game or has some other extenuating circumstance. It's definitely worthy of mention in the series page, but seems to lack notability for a standalone article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the series page, notability is not inherited, and there isn't enough in-depth coverage about this to pass GNG. Onel 5969  TT me 15:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment Found more coverages and reviews. Some of those websites can be considered RS...

Coverage - 1

Reviews - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5  Lanzlink  (talk)  13:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * , thank you for the refs. I've addressed ref 3- Vintage is the World- as a non-RS. Unfortunately, I couldn't find editorial policies for the new linked sites showing a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy per WP:RS. However, for the pinged users- if the authors are subject-matter-experts, or if the sites are acceptable per WP:USEBYOTHERS, could you please ping me? If you all agree to keep this I can withdraw the nomination, though I'm standing by it now, many thanks again!  VickKiang  (talk)  02:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment aaudio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources per WP:RS.

So, here some other coverages in video and audio format that can be considered RS... - 1/1 - 2 - 3  Lanzlink  (talk)  03:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * This is an unreliable show, the podcaster is non a subject-matter-expert, and the original site has no editorial policies. This also appears to be amateur-like, though they are reviewed by The Guardian. Therefore, this audio-format site might be RS. The third one is a YouTube channel, which is too insufficient. Though, given these reviews and video/audio format ones I'm at weak redirect (updated) instead.  VickKiang  (talk)  05:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Sorry to relist this but I'm seeing a Weak Delete, Weak Keeps and several Redirects along with arguments for those opinions. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am leaning more merge now just because this is a verifiable part of a series. The weak keep is based on WP:POTENTIAL. But I agreed with Andre that a lot of the reviewers are unreliable blogs. Archrogue (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Zxcvbnm. Reviews are the bare minimum and if the game doesn't have that then it shouldn't have an article. I suppose it can be mentioned at the series page. Jontesta (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Redirect to Dizzy (series) as mentioned. While on the surface the article looks sourced enough, upon more detailed inspection you can notice that references are either of dubious notability or just not significant enough for a WP:GNG pass. #1 is a quotation + WP:ROUTINE announcement coverage, #2 a WP:PRIMARY podcast interview, #3 a passing mention, #4 seems among the most reliable sources but the coverage is dedicated to Jarrod Bentley instead of the game, #5 WP:ROUTINE release coverage and written by "Paulo" (this applies to #10), who appears to be a programmer rather than an actual video games journalist. #6 looks good from the coverage level but seems to be a blog, #7 a WP:PRIMARY official website, #8 coming from a dubious webstore, #11 it says "The post was published in iXBT.com blogs, its author is not related to iXBT.com editors" and #12 is a forum. #9 is in my opinion probably the best salvageable source. VickKiang's arguments about the sources Andre posted are correct and Lanzlink posted sources in the article I've already discussed here + more podcast interviews which are WP:PRIMARY sources. My searches bring up little to add on this. All in all, just not enough, but it's still worthy to WP:PRESERVE the redirect to the main series article as an alternative to deletion. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2022 (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.