Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GearHead

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 delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GearHead

GearHead (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A game about which no sources have felt fit to comment. The article is unsourced, hitting Google gave me only blog and wiki posts, and Google News has never heard of it. Grue asserted that it's notable when he removed the prod, but failed to add any sort of sources to back up that claim. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

RPG Codex mean anything to you? 70.162.13.111 23:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC) P.S. Is notability really that big an issue, considering that the article is to help people learn about something. I was assuming that Wikipedia's purpose is to tell people about topics that would require sifting through elsewhere.

No, not really. RPG Codex seems to be a news blog written by pseudonymous authors. Wikipedia's purpose is to be an encyclopedia that rests its authority on reliable sources, meaning ones with peer review or editorial control. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What about notability? GearHead has plenty of facts about it, and it is quite advanced. 70.162.13.111 23:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

And, while I'm on it, doesn't it have a deletion vote? (Which I started, but forgot to sign) 70.162.13.111 23:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability is the quality of having been commented upon in reliable sources (meaning ones with peer review or editorial control). GearHead lacks that quality, as far as I can tell. As for the deletion discussion, this is that very discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

And, while I'm on it (that may be a common quote), isn't Wikipedia quite pseudonymous itself, for someone whose page doesn't say a whole lot about himself. Huh? At least somewhere where you have to register an account should be more valid than Wikipedia. Fine then, I'll write a video-gaming magazine about GearHead. Now. (By 70.162.13.111, I never sign, sorry.)

All the more reason for Wikipedia to use sources that are reliable. Wikipedia's articles are only as reliable as their sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

GearHead is listed as a Top Dog at the Home of the Underdogs. That's quite an accolade. SharkD 01:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is this not cited in the article, and since when is HOTU a reliable source? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep for a roguelike to be mentioned in mainstream gaming magazine such as PC Gamer is quite a feat. Also Top Dog on Home of the Underdogs.  Grue  18:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  Why doesn't this article cite that PC Gamer article? Is that PC Gamer article substantive enough to actually serve as a source for this article, or is it the typical two-sentence blurb as part of a list of all the games crammed on the cover CD? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, the only real issue I see with the article is that it's rather... sparse. Maybe if it looked more like the Dwarf Fortress article? Also, I fail to see the issue with Home of the Underdogs as a source for information. Ryan Magley 22:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  Home of the Underdogs is pseudonymous and has no form of editorial control (let alone peer review). It's a fansite. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  Actually, HoTU is not pseudonymous, check the GameSpot article. At least, unless the pseudonym is full fledged.70.162.13.111 17:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr13 20:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of computer or video games-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Ryan Magley and the guy with the annoying sig (or one of them). Ford MF 09:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 16:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete: There are two attempts to show notability: the RPGCodex interview and the HoTU review. Now, per WP:Reliable sources, a source really needs some editorial control (such as a magazine) to be acceptable. Whilst I've never heard of RPGCodex, I trust HoTU's judgement and the review appears to be staff-written. However, ideally there should be multiple sources. As a side note, the appearance on a cover CD is largely irrelevant and the links to the forum and wiki should be removed per WP:EL. Marasmusine 16:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It looks like a fun game, but there are simply no reliable sources to back that up. HotU isn't a reliable source (as AMiB pointed out), RPG Codex is amusing (if only because the reviewers are so bitter and "old-school") but it's not reliable either, and the PC Gamer coverage seems to just be the file appearing on the CD. PC Gamer, at least a few years ago, regularly gathered up whatever free stuff they could find to fill any shortages of demos and videos to cram on the disc. It indicates that at least one employee liked GearHead, but it also indicates that they didn't like it enough to dedicate some precious magazine space to a couple of paragraphs saying how cool it is. Garrett^Talk 07:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It lacks notability. Top Dog on HotU -- a title it shares with almost 320 other RPGs[1], and many more in other genres -- does not make a game notable enough for encyclopedia coverage. Ichibani 22:27, 16 June 2007 (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.