Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sorcerer's Cave

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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sorcerer's Cave

Contested WP:CSD#A7 deletion (lack of notability). Closing admin agreed to undelete and list at AfD. Procedural nomination, no opinion -N 22:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete. It looks like a decent subject for an article, but the given sources do nothing to establish any sort of notability. If some are found, I would be happy to amend my thoughts. Powers ^T 23:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Weak keep per sources found by Davemon. Collectively they seem to be sufficient. Powers ^T 16:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of non-trivial independent sources, even though I have heard of it. Guy (Help!) 06:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article should have some independent non-trivial sources and suggest the following: Computer and Video Games, Sinclair User #38 1985 and Games and Puzzles Magazine (Autumn 1980) (Doc file), there are slightly less reliable sources such as Home of The underdogs and Inform Fiction - The Reliques of Tolti-Aph Davémon 08:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Sorcerer's Cave and it's sequel Mystic Wood are also briefly mentioned in this paper / talk given at a science-fiction convention in 1987 Designing Adventure Puzzles by Jonathan R. Partington, maths professor, and the author/designer of several 1980's interactive fiction/adventure games - which along with RoTA (above) shows 'peer acknowledgment'. It may also be noted that the game is still being played online in a PBM format on this website - which might not fulfill the criteria of 'independance' for notability but it's not bad for a game nearly 30 years old.
Very weak keep the Computer and Video Game link as well as the article in Puzzles magazine are arguably independent non trivial reliable sources. JoshuaZ 18:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically, the CVG link is trivial in a sense, as it is just a passing mention. Powers ^T 16:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This is really just based on my personal knowledge of the importance and influence of this game. The issue is that the game is pretty old so, unlike modern games, reviews and articles about it are probably not web-accessible. I've certainly read interviews where the game is mentioned as influential, though not discussed in detail. I know that "other stuff exists" is not a good argument, but when you compare it to modern games that do meet the PNC, you really have to wonder about how we set up our criteria. I'll see if I can find some additional sources, but even without them, I think this is a keep. -Chunky Rice 16:49, 7 June 2007 (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.