Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last Eichhof

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. So Why 11:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Eichhof

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

My original intention was actually to clean up, expand, and overall improve this article, but my search for reliable sources on this game have come up more or less empty-handed. At WP:VG, the project's notability criteria states that “Video game-related articles are considered notable by this project if they pass Wikipedia's general notability guidelines” and I have been unable to locate sufficient, non-trivial, independent third-party sources that would satisfy WP:N.

If we look at the version of the article prior to my AfD nomination, it has nine references: one is a YouTube video of where the game took its music from, one is a zip file with the readme that came with the game, one was a forum that contained a copy of the game (and is no longer working), two were places to download it at the Windows Store, two are its entries at Home of the Underdogs and Moby Games (neither are considered a RS by WP:VG), and one is a brief reference to the game in a broader discussion. That leaves one reliable reference, Eurogamer, that says anything more than “the game exists” and, even then, its commentary appears to be sandwiched in the middle of a larger discussion about a different topic.

Finally, given that it was a freeware game, rather than a major release from a company, it’s unlikely that significant coverage exists outside of what can be found through a proper Google/Google Books search (as a silly/inappropriate example, a newspapers.com search yields one result from 1994 from The Age, which effectively just describes the game). The fact is, there are essentially no independent, reliable sources that say anything more than “this game exists”, which, unless there is a guideline I am missing, is not sufficient for a Wikipedia article on a video game. As much as I enjoy this game, there is unfortunately nothing from the perspective of Wikipedia’s criteria that qualify it as notable. Canadian Paul 15:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep, reception, prizes, ports to dozens of platforms, ten-thousands of downloads over the years. Also, prejudice: '"given that it was a freeware game, rather than a major release from a company, it’s unlikely that significant coverage exists"' -> there is no relationship neither in WP policies nor in reality at all between "notability" and "commerciality" of a VG game at all. Shaddim (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide evidence that the topic is notable by providing multiple, independent, reliable sources which provide the topic a significant treatment. If you have none or few, then the game is not presently (nor probably ever) notable and should be removed from coverage here. --Izno (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ported to multiple platforms over the years, so having a living legacy. For instance, years later brought to Windows shop https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/p/the-last-eichhof/9wzdncrd2ccr. Ported years (2014) later to allegro: https://sourceforge.net/projects/lasteichhof/ Ported to many linux distros... Shaddim (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These are not indications of significance. If you cannot do as I requested (provide evidence that the topic is notable by providing multiple, independent, reliable sources which provide the topic a significant treatment), then do not waste your time or mine responding again. --Izno (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
usage, porting, downloads are the PRIMARY indications of relevance: something has impact in reality, is used, it is remembered, is intermingled with culture, has influence. The strange "reliable sources" requirement is only an indirect, less powerful way to assess (but much more convenient) relevancy. Sadly, WP is nowadays severely crippled by being overfocused on the limiting aspects. Also, you might have noticed that I expanded on the sources. Shaddim (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Eurogamer link for reference. I agree that the topic of the article is not the game in question and thus significance is not established. There's a reference in a book in German but it doesn't strike me as a significant treatment. Delete. --Izno (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The Eurogamer author researched the history of the game development and its authros to a detail deeper than the WP article. Mechanics and artistic impact are described. This is complete, significant treatment. Shaddim (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly. But see above. --Izno (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep - Here's a full article in PC Tipp, a Swiss gaming magazine. Zarkonnen (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there does seem to be independent coverage such as the PCTipp review and the Eurogamer paragraph, and others - more would be better but it already barely passses WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of RS coverage. Phediuk (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article in Le Monde (the NYT of France) is a strong enough reference in my opinion. Boblafoudre (talk) 07:13, 4 May 2018 (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.