Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amiga Games Database (2nd nomination)

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amiga Games Database

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was nominated years ago for being non-notable and I would agree that this is non-notable even now. GamerPro64 03:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GamerPro64 03:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. GamerPro64 03:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wow. A highly debatable "no consensus" 14 years ago, and 14 years later we have the same thing once again. How this slipped through the cracks is beyond me. In any regard, WP:BEFORE comes up dry. Aside from the "celebrity reviewer" statement, I'd almost say this is WP:CSD#A7-worthy. It's that bad. Red Phoenix ^talk 03:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I did flair it under A7 but you are not allowed to speedy delete articles that have already been up for AfD. GamerPro64 04:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, and the "celebrity reviewer" statement could be construed as a potentially WP:CCOS. I wouldn't have been the one to delete it if it did qualify because of that, but it's along those lines :) Red Phoenix ^talk 04:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: From the middle 1990s to the early 2010s, AGDB was pretty much the definite unofficial central database for reviews for Amiga games. But it's been almost a decade, and the entire site doesn't seem to exist any more. JIP | Talk 05:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — No way does this pass WP:N. It's a non-notable fansite. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 14:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Red Phoenix's comment. It's just another fansite and there are dozens of fansites on Internet. Non-notable fan project. --Wario-Man (talk) 09:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There certainly is not broad enough coverage of this website in reliable sources for a stand-alone article. I found a short info in Amiga Format 117 (December 1998, p. 98; offline version was included on the magazine´s cover CD), which should be enough for a mention in another article (maybe with a redirect?). However, I don´t see a clear redirect target here. Pavlor (talk) 10:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said, this was pretty well known when it still existed. But as it seems to be long gone, there is probably no need for a separate article any more. It can be mentioned for example on the main Amiga article. JIP | Talk 13:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Red Phoenix and Namcokid. Whether or not a mention could be added somewhere else should not be part of this discussion. IceWelder [✉] 15:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, proposing alternative(s) to deletion is an integral part of any deletion discussion: "When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion. [...] Similarly, if another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why." Pavlor (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavlor: How much is in the offline source you found? What does it say? A passing mention acknowledging its existence as a fan site is probably not enough for a passing mention in the Amiga article if it’s just one source. A more detailed section, like say, a paragraph talking about the site, could make a passing mention worthwhile. Unless there are more sources that mention the site, though, it doesn’t sound like a redirect is necessary at this point. Red Phoenix ^talk 19:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Small paragraph only (more like a passing mention: "New websites on the CD this month include Digital Images, the makers of Space Station 3000, and the website for the Amiga Games Database. This is a collection of game reviews from Amiga users all over the world, including a few celebrity reviews from David Braben, Paul Burkey and more."), there is also a similar coverage in CU Amiga magazine (July 1998). I don´t like cluttering the main Amiga article with rather trivial informations (which this webpage certainly is), so if there is no other redirect target, I don´t see other viable outcome than deletion. Pavlor (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that looks like a trivial mention to me. Probably not enough to even warrant a passing mention at this point. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:12, 29 December 2020 (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.