Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Out to Lunch (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 keep. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Out to Lunch (video game)

Out to Lunch (video game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Computer game from more then 14 years ago. It wasn't popular then and there isn't anything that I can find that would suggest that it's popular now. Law & Disorder 18:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It looks like a really good article, and I'm sure we have other articles about minor games released for the SNES. --Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 18:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I was just reading up on Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions and your comments seem to fall under a couple of of those sections: WP:PRETTY & WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Law & Disorder 18:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs 22:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep being unpopular is not a reason to delete. JuJube 23:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but can you find any good sources to show that this game is in any way notable? Law & Disorder 23:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a MobyGames link. It was published by an established game company (MindScape). A simple Google search shows this game has been reviewed. I think that's enough. Your argument for deletion doesn't hold up. JuJube 00:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The article is about a notable product so popularity doesn't come into it. The reason there aren't plenty of online reviews is exactly because of the game's age, they're all in print. However, when the amiga version alone is subject to this many reviews and probably more. Here's some summarized reviews, complete with page numbers, issue numbers, reviewer and score. I'd suggest withdrawing the AFD and placing an unreferenced tag on the article. If you're ever unsure about a game's notability, drop the project a line.Someone another 09:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Popularity != Notability. Mdmkolbe 22:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 09:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as article no reliable secondary sources as evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins 09:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • But as Someone another has pointed out, the topic does meet WP:N. The article needs work for WP:V, but notability is about the topic, not the article quality. Non-WP:N articles can't be fixed (it is a property of the topic) and should be deleted; non-WP:V articles can be fixed and should not be deleted (at least until there is a chance to fix them). Mdmkolbe 04:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Quite aside from the above correct statement, I remember a detailed magazine review. It's not in English, but that's not required. --Kizor 04:36, 2 November 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.