Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuthbert Goes Digging

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. - Mailer Diablo 18:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cuthbert Goes Digging

Nominated for deletion on grounds of notability. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dubc0724 (talk • contribs) .

• As the original author, I'd obviously like to argue for the article's retention - while not perhaps the most notable computer game, the Cuthbert games were part of the history of UK computing and important to the development of home computers and games consoles (even if the Dragon system was an evolutionary deadend!) Swpmre 10:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It appears to fail WP:SOFTWARE, unless this criteria can be met "The software is/was innovative, significant, or influential in some specific way, and this is verifiable from reliable sources independent of the software developer.". --Porqin 12:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. wikipediatrix 13:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Whether or not it's decided to delete this, surely it's wrong to quote WP:SOFTWARE; given that this page describes itself as a "proposed Wikipedia policy" meaning it "may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption." The article then continues ...."References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy"." Swpmre 15:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• You're right, it is a guideline, and without anything more, this game that is 20+ years old doesn't seem to be anything an encyclopedia would contain. If you find some verifiable sources proving this game to be significant or infleuental, I will change my opinion otherwise. --Porqin 16:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Cuthbert (Microdeal). This doesn't strike me as sufficiently notable on its own. But as a series of games, I think it squeaks by. Scorpiondollprincess 16:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 19:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• merge per scorpiondollprincess (good name!). BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: I'm sorry, but how does it fail verifiability? Granted I haven't heard of the series or the platform, but can you qualify your statement? I cannot vote delete with such a dubious assertion (dare I call it even that?). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• If you're referring to my comment, I never made a claim the game itself isn't verifiable, but rather why this game deserves a place in an encyclopedia. It fails WP:SOFTWARE, and unless it is notable for some other reason which hasn't been mentioned yet, I see no reason to keep it. --Porqin 17:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: seems notable as an ancient video game --Peephole 15:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Just because it is old doesn't make it notable. --Porqin 17:17, 14 August 2006 (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.