1014:
knowledge? This article is a important piece of gaming history, so leave it be. If you don't like its inclusion in
Knowledge (XXG), then go read some other Knowledge (XXG) article. This article doesn't require any third party sources. Just because a journalist writes a news article about a game doesn't make the source any more authoritative than an article by a kid who's played it for hundred's of hours. Knowledge (XXG) should include human KNOWLEDGE, and KNOWLEDGE should not be monopolized by those who have access to a printing press, people with high falooting credentials, or bloated reputations. Knowledge is stored in BRAINS, not INK. I do hold a PhD, and anyone with a similar degree should know how limited their knowledge really is. I could easily lend my credentials to third party article about this game, but why would I when I can just edit the Knowledge (XXG) article, although I don't anymore because of you Nazi censor editors. If a printing press is your source of knowledge, then your knowledge is very limited indeed. - RL
583:" (emphasis from original). If the references that demonstrate notability are harder to find because they were published before widespread use of the Internet, that's fine, but it's still the responsibility of those editors who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that such references do exist, with more than just vague assertions. Having said that, I accept that the subject may be notable – perhaps even well-known in North America for example – and that it was just a poor article when nominated. Improvements have been made already, and that in itself is a positive outcome. In my opinion, an additional reference to "significant coverage in a reliable source" (I don't think a student essay can reasonably be counted as such) would be sufficient to fully establish notability. --
663:; content that is clearly not covered by this policy now exists (I've struck this out for clarity). When nominated, this article had no reliable references; it appears to have one now, but it's not clear if it amounts to "significant coverage", and multiple such references are almost always required needed to establish notability. The game may be published by Sierra, but as I noted above, notability is not inherited. If you believe this is featured article material, let us in on a couple of the references that would support that article, and establish notability. --
980:, there's two reviews there but unfortunately they haven't been scanned so there's no text available to cite. The site itself specializes in Amiga, so the fact there's two reviews for a DOS game within the multi-platform magazines listed there means it's likely that PC specific mags will have reviewed it. Regardless, it is notable because it has been reviewed in multiple magazines from the time, it's just that none of them are currently scanned in ATM.
484:. This game was very popular in its heyday which happened before the Internet age, but it was well covered in the offline game magazines of that time. Using the Internet age standards to judge this game is very unfair in my opinion. Of course I do not know Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for deleting articles and I do not wish to bother to know. My question is just, is Knowledge (XXG) so hard up on hard disk space that this article needs to be deleted?
71:
615:
encyclopaedic subjects should indeed be kept if they are demonstrated to be notable (possibly with BLP exceptions that don't apply here); articles of any standard that are of non-notable or non-encyclopaedic subjects should not. Nominating such an article for AfD, and arguing your case once there, is not an "axe to grind", and deletion debates are decided by strength of argument, not numbers. --
699:). In my opinion, a single article containing unknown coverage, a student essay, an almost empty game FAQ and a link to a flash version of the game do not amount to significant coverage in reliable sources. I will be just as happy, if not more so, if after this nomination the article has encyclopedic content and sufficient references to fully establish notability, as if it is deleted. --
255:). Notability is not established and appears unlikely to be established. (the recently added reference claims to be published by "Stamford University", and indeed the link is deeply nested in a University address; it appears rather that this is a self-published document in a user area of the Stamford website; it is listed on this page, titled "Student essays":
1139:
760:, so I've amended my comment above. More credible third party sources would still be worth finding, the article only barely makes it as is, and is at risk of further AfD's if nothing is added. An AfD is sometimes the only thing that gets people to research a topic - let's hope that enthusiasm continues.
952:
Great, have added to the article. Evidence of other reviews would be also be good - I note the mention of two others below but without the actual text I can't tell if they are one-line product mentions or something more substantial. I've checked the first 500 google links - anyone want to do the next
815:
Would you please stop this quest to delete this article? you seem to be the only one interested in deleting it, you have gathered no support for the delete request, would you please leave it be or focus on improving this article? and euralyus, not all articles need to answer to this rigorous standard
727:
these points. That's not surprising given the age of the game, and I suspect a thorough examination of video-game texts or research papers would uncover more and better sources. Entire chapters or in-depth articles aren't needed - just a few references noting Jones' contribution to what came after. I
250:
Article gives no indication why this particular game may be notable. Video games are not automatically notable. No reliable sources are given in the article, and internet searches using Google failed to find any. Discussion with one of the major contributors to the article implies he is not aware of
548:
See, u are already being bureaucratic for using the
Internet age standards to judge the notability of the game. And as to the comments u made on my talk page about being civil and in good faith, I am already restraining myself, otherwise vulgarities would have been uttered at your cold bureaucracy.
640:
state, and that's not a reason for deletion. We'd only delete it if we found that no amount of improvement would allow it to meet guidelines. This is a game published by Sierra, a very important publisher in the game industry. There's no doubt in my mind that this article could even reach featured
1013:
All you Nazi editors are turning
Knowledge (XXG) into a Crap-o-pedia. I loved Knowledge (XXG) a lot more before you all started changing it to fit your ideas of what should and shouldn't be included. Don't you realize you are just like the censors in China who decide what should and shouldn't be
1073:
person currently adding references to the page to help build the notability case is one of the people you've just attacked. Thirdly, Knowledge (XXG) articles require verifiable sources, and personal opinions (even from people with PhD's like yourself) are regrettably not enough to support them.
614:
That is not the meaning of my comments above; when I nominated the article, it had no assertion of notability and no reliable sources, making it an apparent candidate for deletion after my own searches turned up empty. That is what I meant when I called it a "poor article". Poor articles of
679:
Now lets all be honest about this. trying to get scholarly-grade citations for a 1991 computer game is absurd. don't set the bar improbably high just to prune wikipedia of content. as far games go, this is relatively notable, as a google search, various posters here and some links show.
574:
I am concerned about some of the arguments put forward, which appear to imply that it is the nominator's responsibility to demonstrate non-notability. Apart from the obvious difficulties in demonstrating conclusively that references do not exist, the policy page
694:
I'm not looking for that; a couple of in-depth articles in reliable magazines or a sizeable chapter of a book with a major publisher for example would be fine. If the game doesn't have that kind of coverage, "Knowledge (XXG) should not have an article on it."
722:
is the game was a pioneer for the "electronic boardgame" style, one of the first to introduce the concept of an electronic cash economy and a trailblazer in graphics and intuitive gameplay. Alas, the current references don't yet conclusively
995:
As with others above, I believe that this video game is highly likely to have sources that meet WP:N. That they would be print articles is not a reason to delete. Yes, this is a guess. But a darn safe one given the publisher.
734:- the sources (even my Stanford one) don't quite meet the notability threshold. One of those regrettable cases where the subject is notable in real life but we may be unable to include it because sources can't readily be found.
400:. This is a commercial game released by a major company. It well post-dates large-scale video game journalism but predates wide-scale Internet use, so it's very likely that this article is sourceable and a Google search is
429:); to the second, if that is the case, go ahead and find and cite some; otherwise this is really just personal opinion. To the third, I agree that after some additions there is now a separate stub article to consider.--
335:, wikipedia seems to have no problem listing all other sorts of old games that are too old to have any online third party references aside from gaming sites. This is a game that was released almost two decades ago by
1069:- firstly, calling people Nazis is offensive enough to invalidate whatever else you might have to say. Secondly, you might want to actually look at the article before insulting people - you'll find that the
599:
An article isn't removed just because it requires improvements or lacks certain topics and concentrates on others. I don't know why you have an axe to grind, but it seems you're being outnumbered here.
728:
don't have a library of video-game texts and wouldn't know where to look, but hopefully someone better versed in the subject area will come forward during the AfD. In the absence of this I'd say
498:
If it was well-covered in such magazines, citing a few shouldn't be hard. (I wasn't judging it by the internet age; I was noting I had made an effort to find references before nominating.) --
1135:
1131:
78:
235:
271:
Current content, with the exception of that citing the
Stamford reference, appears to be limited to a game guide; this is excluded as encyclopedic content by the policy
882:
is not an argument for retention. In any case, current consensus appears to be to merge TV episode articles that do not clearly demonstrate independent notability; see
309:
379:
526:
And you are asking the
Knowledge (XXG) community to trust your assertion of your memory of 18-year-old events, without evidence, which is clearly contrary to
512:
You are nuts for asking me to find for you game magazines that I had 18 years ago, which I had since thrown them away. You are just being bureaucratic here.
202:
197:
206:
189:
838:
817:
87:
1130:. I think just about enough evidence has already been presented above to show notability, and there are more potential sources found by
1049:
1021:
681:
549:
Anyway, any gameplay information about the article can be easily gained from a playthrough of the game which I still occasionally play.
1053:
842:
117:
1154:
would seem to give it a few paragraphs, and last (and least) the game's title seems to have inspired a couple of cricket journalists
17:
816:
put by it. WP:V generally refers to more contentious subjects. if single episodes of TV shows each have an article, so could this.
977:
883:
862:
103:
879:
1183:
36:
1168:
1122:
1083:
1029:
1005:
987:
962:
947:
920:
895:
873:
825:
810:
788:
769:
743:
708:
689:
672:
650:
624:
609:
592:
558:
543:
521:
507:
493:
474:
460:
438:
420:
415:
391:
367:
352:
324:
298:
252:
193:
54:
576:
527:
76:
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
984:
149:
1182:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
935:
834:
821:
685:
1045:
1025:
1017:
531:
133:
107:
1164:
185:
60:
1102:
830:
660:
637:
453:
276:
92:
1041:
1110:
456:
could go, but otherwise there is sufficient notability established in that deletion is not necessary.
406:
Article content is an editing issue and does not require the use of special tools such as deletion. --
981:
916:
605:
348:
336:
646:
1157:
1079:
958:
944:
891:
870:
806:
780:
765:
739:
704:
668:
620:
588:
539:
503:
470:
457:
434:
364:
320:
294:
286:
139:
70:
1160:
1155:
387:
256:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
794:
426:
1118:
784:
1098:
272:
1151:
1001:
912:
601:
554:
517:
489:
410:
344:
1094:
719:
1147:
642:
1106:
850:
757:
724:
696:
1075:
954:
887:
865:. Right above the edit summary box and that button that says "Save page" states that
802:
761:
735:
700:
664:
616:
584:
535:
499:
466:
430:
316:
290:
282:
1150:
that cites it as a stage in the development of this genre. I don't read Hebrew, but
858:
798:
383:
167:
155:
123:
49:
223:
102:
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
1114:
465:
This seems to be an assertion of notability without any reasoning as to why. --
997:
656:
550:
513:
485:
407:
1109:
isn't inherited) should warrant this one the benefit of the doubt, also per
1097:
can still be recovered which would definitely move this from "barely passes
939:
340:
581:
burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material
343:"jones+in+the+fast+lane" , as a phrase, reveals over 15,000 results.
779:
A release by Sierra should be sufficient to establish notability.--
1176:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
752:- the various minor sources uncovered during this AfD have gone
65:
96:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,
1105:, and both the age and the producer (despite the fact that
86:
among
Knowledge (XXG) contributors. Knowledge (XXG) has
909:
Would you please stop this quest to delete this article?
230:
219:
215:
211:
532:
WP:notability#Notability requires objective evidence
281:(content not covered by this guideline now exists --
659:above, I'm no longer asserting deletion because of
425:To the first point, notability is not inherited (
339:, and a google search of jones in the fast lane,
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1186:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1093:- the ad hominems notwithstanding, I trust more
972:in addition to the small (but at least citable)
930:– there is also another print source providing
797:). This is a plausible argument for a merge to
380:list of video game related deletion discussions
116:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
8:
304:
90:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
310:list of Game-related deletion discussions
378:: This debate has been included in the
308:: This debate has been included in the
110:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
867:encyclopedic content must be verifiable
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
884:Knowledge (XXG):Television episodes
793:Notability is still not inherited (
641:article status with a lot of work.
363:, not about others. Stay on point.
341:http://www.google.com.au/search?q=
24:
69:
289:) 23:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC))
242:Several reasons for deletion:
1:
106:on the part of others and to
253:Talk:Jones in the Fast Lane
1203:
1169:18:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
1123:16:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
1084:22:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
1030:14:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
1006:13:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
988:01:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
963:02:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
948:20:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
921:19:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
896:20:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
874:20:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
826:16:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
811:14:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
789:02:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
770:22:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
744:23:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
709:23:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
690:21:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
673:23:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
651:15:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
625:23:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
610:13:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
593:11:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
559:01:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
544:14:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
522:04:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
508:11:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
494:10:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
475:11:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
461:22:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
439:11:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
421:20:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
392:18:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
368:18:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
353:03:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
325:22:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
299:22:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
55:22:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
1101:" to solidly referenced.
1091:Keep & Tag refimprove
1179:Please do not modify it.
976:article, it's listed on
32:Please do not modify it.
1138:searches. I also found
530:(see quotes above) and
148:; accounts blocked for
118:single-purpose accounts
88:policies and guidelines
186:Jones in the Fast Lane
61:Jones in the Fast Lane
1103:Considering potential
1054:few or no other edits
934:coverage of the game
843:few or no other edits
1142:brief review in the
1056:outside this topic.
845:outside this topic.
756:way to establishing
579:clearly states "The
359:We're talking about
978:Amiga Magazine Rack
880:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
655:Per my response to
636:: article is in an
454:game guide material
100:by counting votes.
79:not a majority vote
44:The result was
1144:Los Angeles Times
1057:
1020:comment added by
863:Lego Rock Raiders
846:
394:
327:
313:
181:
180:
177:
104:assume good faith
53:
1194:
1181:
1095:reliable sources
1039:
1032:
828:
720:personal opinion
577:WP:Verifiability
528:WP:Verifiability
418:
413:
374:
314:
233:
227:
209:
175:
163:
147:
131:
112:
82:, but instead a
73:
66:
52:
34:
1202:
1201:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1184:deletion review
1177:
1015:
886:for example. --
857:article – from
416:
411:
404:representative.
275:, specifically
229:
200:
184:
165:
153:
137:
121:
108:sign your posts
64:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1200:
1198:
1189:
1188:
1172:
1171:
1136:Google Scholar
1125:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1034:
1033:
1008:
990:
967:
966:
965:
924:
923:
911:- hear hear!!
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
878:Indeed. Also,
831:132.66.127.228
818:132.66.127.228
813:
774:
773:
772:
713:
712:
711:
677:
676:
675:
630:
629:
628:
627:
596:
595:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
479:
478:
477:
443:
442:
441:
405:
402:definitely not
395:
371:
370:
356:
355:
329:
328:
266:
265:
248:
247:
240:
239:
179:
178:
74:
63:
58:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1199:
1187:
1185:
1180:
1174:
1173:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1156:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1126:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1072:
1068:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1042:72.95.159.226
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1022:72.95.159.226
1019:
1012:
1009:
1007:
1003:
999:
994:
991:
989:
986:
983:
979:
975:
971:
968:
964:
960:
956:
951:
950:
949:
946:
942:
941:
936:
933:
929:
926:
925:
922:
918:
914:
910:
907:
906:
897:
893:
889:
885:
881:
877:
876:
875:
872:
868:
864:
860:
856:
852:
851:verifiability
848:
847:
844:
840:
836:
832:
827:
823:
819:
814:
812:
808:
804:
800:
796:
792:
791:
790:
786:
782:
778:
775:
771:
767:
763:
759:
755:
751:
747:
746:
745:
741:
737:
733:
732:
726:
721:
717:
714:
710:
706:
702:
698:
693:
692:
691:
687:
683:
682:85.64.221.163
678:
674:
670:
666:
662:
658:
654:
653:
652:
648:
644:
639:
635:
632:
631:
626:
622:
618:
613:
612:
611:
607:
603:
598:
597:
594:
590:
586:
582:
578:
573:
570:
560:
556:
552:
547:
546:
545:
541:
537:
533:
529:
525:
524:
523:
519:
515:
511:
510:
509:
505:
501:
497:
496:
495:
491:
487:
483:
480:
476:
472:
468:
464:
463:
462:
459:
455:
451:
447:
444:
440:
436:
432:
428:
424:
423:
422:
419:
414:
409:
403:
399:
396:
393:
389:
385:
381:
377:
373:
372:
369:
366:
362:
358:
357:
354:
350:
346:
342:
338:
334:
331:
330:
326:
322:
318:
311:
307:
303:
302:
301:
300:
296:
292:
288:
284:
280:
278:
274:
268:
264:
261:
260:
259:
257:
254:
245:
244:
243:
237:
232:
225:
221:
217:
213:
208:
204:
199:
195:
191:
187:
183:
182:
173:
169:
161:
157:
151:
145:
141:
135:
129:
125:
119:
115:
111:
109:
105:
99:
95:
94:
89:
85:
81:
80:
75:
72:
68:
67:
62:
59:
57:
56:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1178:
1175:
1161:Phil Bridger
1152:this article
1148:this article
1143:
1132:Google Books
1127:
1090:
1070:
1066:
1010:
992:
973:
969:
938:
931:
927:
908:
866:
859:Barack Obama
854:
799:Sierra Games
776:
753:
749:
730:
729:
715:
661:WP:GAMEGUIDE
638:WP:IMPERFECT
633:
580:
571:
481:
449:
445:
401:
397:
375:
361:this article
360:
332:
305:
277:WP:GAMEGUIDE
270:
269:
267:
262:
249:
241:
171:
159:
150:sockpuppetry
143:
132:; suspected
127:
113:
101:
97:
91:
83:
77:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1111:WP:PRESERVE
1052:) has made
1016:—Preceding
853:applies to
849:Incorrect.
841:) has made
731:weak delete
1107:notability
943:magazine.
758:notability
657:User:Kizor
246:Notability
84:discussion
913:Timeshift
643:Randomran
602:Timeshift
345:Timeshift
251:any (see
140:canvassed
134:canvassed
93:consensus
1076:Euryalus
1050:contribs
1018:unsigned
974:Compute!
955:Euryalus
953:500? ;)
945:MuZemike
940:COMPUTE!
888:Rogerb67
871:MuZemike
861:down to
839:contribs
803:Rogerb67
762:Euryalus
736:Euryalus
701:Rogerb67
665:Rogerb67
617:Rogerb67
585:Rogerb67
536:Rogerb67
500:Rogerb67
467:Rogerb67
458:MuZemike
431:Rogerb67
365:MuZemike
317:Rogerb67
291:Rogerb67
283:Rogerb67
236:View log
172:username
166:{{subst:
160:username
154:{{subst:
144:username
138:{{subst:
128:username
122:{{subst:
1099:the GNG
1067:Comment
985:another
982:Someone
795:WP:ITSA
750:Comment
716:Comment
572:Comment
450:cleanup
427:WP:ITSA
384:MrKIA11
263:Content
203:protect
198:history
136:users:
1134:, and
1115:MLauba
781:Sloane
725:verify
452:– the
337:Sierra
273:WP:NOT
231:delete
207:delete
998:Hobit
855:every
718:- My
551:Kiwi8
514:Kiwi8
486:Kiwi8
234:) – (
224:views
216:watch
212:links
114:Note:
16:<
1165:talk
1146:and
1140:this
1128:Keep
1119:talk
1080:talk
1071:only
1046:talk
1026:talk
1011:Keep
1002:talk
993:Keep
970:Keep
959:talk
932:some
928:Note
917:talk
892:talk
835:talk
822:talk
807:talk
801:. --
785:talk
777:Keep
766:talk
754:some
740:talk
705:talk
697:WP:V
686:talk
669:talk
647:talk
634:Keep
621:talk
606:talk
589:talk
555:talk
540:talk
518:talk
504:talk
490:talk
482:Keep
471:talk
448:and
446:Keep
435:talk
398:Keep
388:talk
376:Note
349:talk
333:Keep
321:talk
306:Note
295:talk
287:talk
220:logs
194:talk
190:edit
46:keep
937:in
534:.--
408:Kiz
168:csp
164:or
156:csm
124:spa
98:not
1167:)
1159:.
1121:)
1113:.
1082:)
1048:•
1040:—
1028:)
1004:)
961:)
919:)
894:)
869:.
837:•
829:—
824:)
809:)
787:)
768:)
742:)
707:)
688:)
671:)
649:)
623:)
608:)
591:)
557:)
542:)
520:)
506:)
492:)
473:)
437:)
390:)
382:.
351:)
323:)
312:.
297:)
258:.
222:|
218:|
214:|
210:|
205:|
201:|
196:|
192:|
174:}}
162:}}
152::
146:}}
130:}}
120::
50:BJ
48:.
1163:(
1117:(
1078:(
1044:(
1024:(
1000:(
957:(
915:(
890:(
833:(
820:(
805:(
783:(
764:(
748:'
738:(
703:(
695:(
684:(
667:(
645:(
619:(
604:(
587:(
553:(
538:(
516:(
502:(
488:(
469:(
433:(
417:r
412:o
386:(
347:(
319:(
315:—
293:(
285:(
279:.
238:)
228:(
226:)
188:(
176:.
170:|
158:|
142:|
126:|
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
