Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creatures (1990 video game)

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 speedy keep. Nom also implicitly withdrew. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Creatures (1990 video game)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find any reliable sources for this. Fails WP:GNG. PJvanMill (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This, too: Creatures II: Torture Trouble. Much the same, unless those magazine pages can be considered reliable. PJvanMill (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG as there is multiple in-depth coverage of this game such as Retro Gamer [1], ST Format [2], Eurogamer [3], Computer and Video Games [4], Commodore Format [5], Your Commodore [6], Zzap!64 [7]. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern here is whether these sources can be considered generally reliable. The Eurogamer one is user-generated, so I think that's out. The other ones all don't look very reliable to me, but maybe I'm biased against colourful things and some of those magazines do have a repuation for fact-checking. PJvanMill (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eurogamer article was written by Spanner Spencer, now a staff at Pocket Gamer, which is considered reliable at WP:VG/RS, so I have no reliability issues there. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're biased against colorful things. These are five computer magazines from 1990-1991 reviewing the game, which clearly demonstrates that the game was considered notable at the time. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a reservation I had, not a complete rejection. PJvanMill (talk) 11:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources identified by Jovanmilic97. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are good and could better serve this article by being added into it. As proper citations, not further reading. --Micky (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per all the sources provided, above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Both games have reliable sources giving them significant coverage. Dream Focus 14:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as nom, this is sufficient for the GNG after all. PJvanMill (talk) 11:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.