Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comp.sys.sinclair Crap Games Competition
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. This defaults to keep because the barest modicum of independent published sources reference the event. Users should feel free to merge and redirect if appropriate, however. Cool Hand Luke 17:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comp.sys.sinclair Crap Games Competition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable newsgroup pleasantry, everybody who has heard of the competition has entered it. No considerable coverage outside of special interest publications related to the Spectrum. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 08:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. WP:PAPER and I fail to see what would be gained by deleting this article. There is no need to be a killjoy. Besides, the fact that the competition has been running for some 15 years now and continues to attract a considerable number of entries every year indicates that it isn't on the same level as 'things made up in school one day'. Sure, it may not appear in reliable sources; but that's common of Internet culture, and it's more notable than you think. Conflict disclosure: I have entered it a couple of times. PT (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: The exact quote from the RetroGamer Roundup is as follows
- "[we've got] here a link to the comp.sys.sinclair Crap Games Competition from 2010, that's a newsgroup that's been running an annual contest for some time to create awful games on the Spectrum; well they don't need to create awful games, there were some already made and available for sale, I think you'll find, Dizzy not being one of them."
- "I'm looking at the video he's posted for the crap games, and I don't know why, but there's about a ten-minute section of a flashing logo (I guess someone's quite proud of their logo), and then like one second of gameplay. But yeah I'm gonna have to bookmark that"
- I've put this here because it's rather tedious to find, appearing about 5 hours in to a 6 hour audio file. I'm not claiming that it establishes notability, just making the questioned evidence more readily available. PT (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument is really just "I like it". You should show how it does satisfy the general notability guidelines (don't waste your time with that!) or why it should be a special case (I don't think "it's been around for 15 years" is a good enough argument). Wenttomowameadow (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am of the opinion (not shared by WP policy, I realise) that Internet culture as a whole is a special case, because elements thereof typically have to become very notable before the kinds of things WP takes as RS pick up on them. Compare: a completely arbitrary example I found very quickly of a school with 100 pupils (and therefore an intake of about 15 per year) whose only reference is that school's website (a self-published source, mark you), versus an established annual competition with around 20 participants per year (with a significant turnover and international range), referenced by several of the key websites of an admittedly niche hobby. I expect your gut reaction to the first is to consider it notable, and it probably stands up better to the GNG, but I consider that in the basic sense of the word (rather than as defined by WP policy), if the former is notable then so is the latter. It's not just that I "like it", it's that WP policy has a systemic bias against online communities. PT (talk) 04:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This would be an actual problem if Wikipedia was the only site on the Internet. I don't understand why people choose to stick with Wikipedia when they don't like its guidelines, instead of just putting the content somewhere else. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok now that's beginning to sound a little antsy. Overall I do like Wikipedia, otherwise I wouldn't edit or participate in the process. It's just that in this respect it's suboptimal. Your argument seems to be "Those are the rules, if you don't like it go away" - which simply ignores the possibility that the rules might be anything other than perfect.
- As for 'putting the content somewhere else', most of the content is paralleled elsewhere - but the fact is that Wikipedia is the first port of call of many people upon first hearing of something and wanting to know what it is.
- I maintain that an encyclopædia's notability guidelines should not exhibit systemic or systematic bias. This seems to me to be a fundamental principle; clearly you disagree. Perhaps we should wait for someone with another perspective to chip in, as we are currently tending towards a circular trajectory. PT (talk) 05:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I encouraged you to explain how this should be a special case, but instead you rallied against the guidelines which probably isn't going to achieve much in this discussion. If you come up with a good—not general—reason why this should be a special case then you might even change my mind.Wenttomowameadow (talk) 06:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am explaining how this is a special case; I'm just taking a different 'this' to you. There is no finite upper bound on how general a special case can be. PT (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I encouraged you to explain how this should be a special case, but instead you rallied against the guidelines which probably isn't going to achieve much in this discussion. If you come up with a good—not general—reason why this should be a special case then you might even change my mind.Wenttomowameadow (talk) 06:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This would be an actual problem if Wikipedia was the only site on the Internet. I don't understand why people choose to stick with Wikipedia when they don't like its guidelines, instead of just putting the content somewhere else. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am of the opinion (not shared by WP policy, I realise) that Internet culture as a whole is a special case, because elements thereof typically have to become very notable before the kinds of things WP takes as RS pick up on them. Compare: a completely arbitrary example I found very quickly of a school with 100 pupils (and therefore an intake of about 15 per year) whose only reference is that school's website (a self-published source, mark you), versus an established annual competition with around 20 participants per year (with a significant turnover and international range), referenced by several of the key websites of an admittedly niche hobby. I expect your gut reaction to the first is to consider it notable, and it probably stands up better to the GNG, but I consider that in the basic sense of the word (rather than as defined by WP policy), if the former is notable then so is the latter. It's not just that I "like it", it's that WP policy has a systemic bias against online communities. PT (talk) 04:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument is really just "I like it". You should show how it does satisfy the general notability guidelines (don't waste your time with that!) or why it should be a special case (I don't think "it's been around for 15 years" is a good enough argument). Wenttomowameadow (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: The exact quote from the RetroGamer Roundup is as follows
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 09:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - every part of me is screaming "keep" because I loved YS's "Crap Game Corner". But putting emotion aside, and looking at this objectively, the contest simply does not have the secondary sourcing required for an encyclopedic article. If PT's argument that Wikipedia has a bias towards published sources rather than online communities, then yes, guilty as charged, I'm afraid that's just how we're defined. I'll keep my eyes peeled in Retro Gamer magazine though - who knows, we may get a full article on the subject. Marasmusine (talk) 09:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - as far as I can tell, that bias is manifested only in implementation (ie. specific policy rules), not in intention. It seems that the defenses which have been erected against including every silly meme that spreads across facetwit have had the unintended consequence of causing WP to become attached to 'the Establishment' and biasing it against niche hobbies, online communities and any cultures other than 'mainstream' and the recognised 'counterculture' (which has become something of an institution in itself). The Spectrum 'scene' may be a narrow interest group, but it's notable as a whole and the CGC is notable from the perspective of members of the scene. I have a first-hand account of someone hearing of the CGC and reading this article to find out what it was; while this is merely anecdotal evidence, it shows that some good is done by this article's existence on Wikipedia. Either some harm is also done (for which I have yet to see any argument or even any claim that that is the case), or the policies and guidelines are counterproductive, in which case this is a perfectly valid place to discuss them (alternatively, we can take this to Wikipedia Talk:GNG or somewhere if you'd rather; but apparently "Notability guidelines... reflect practice and consensus of those editors who bother to show up and !vote at AFD" (from [1])). PT (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles about memes are only less acceptable in terms of your own value system (although I agree that the CGC has more merit than dumb parroted memes; I've entered the competition twice). None of that has to do with maintaining the scope of Wikipedia. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can tell, the only theoretical justification for restricting the scope of Wikipedia according to a threshold of notability is the technical requirement of server space and its cost; therefore notability guidelines are about trading off space against usefulness. It is not just that I consider articles about memes less useful than an article about the CGC (incidentally, I was only using them as an example of something whose low value is almost universally agreed upon), it is also that as notability tends to zero, the number of items having at least that notability tends to infinity; there are lots of silly memes. We have a notability threshold because we don't have infinite space. None of this justifies our notability guidelines having an inherent systemic bias against certain classes of topic. You have split an irrelevant hair. Perhaps now you'd like to address the substance of my arguments? Incidentally, given your username, I just have to ask - were either of your entries ALS clones? :p PT (talk) 00:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No.
- You've missed the point if you think it's about server space. It's more about quality; an important part of an encyclopedia beyond the content is its navigability. Indiscriminate inclusion leads to oceans of links to special interest information that make articles less effective as overviews for people unfamiliar with the subject matter. I'm not going to be able to change your mind about notability policy and this isn't the right place to have this discussion so I'll drop this completely now. Whoops, I actually meant "my predilection for continuing this conversation as is inversely proportional to time and an examination of the piecewise definition of my give a care function reveals a step at timestamp 1303710103". Wenttomowameadow (talk) 05:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how including special interest information leads to oceans of links. Links to this page will only appear on pages that are related (no-one's going to link here from an article on wombats). If you're reading a page on, say, "Category:Usenet newsgroups in the comp.* hierarchy", "Programming competitions#Humorous" or "Retrocomputing", then implicitly you already have some level of interest. The way to manage navigability is not to exclude articles on the grounds of notability, rather notability should be used to inform the relevance decision of linking from another article (for instance, while the relevance of the CGC to the Category: example is low, category pages typically consist of a page of links anyway and so their relevance threshold is low. Retrocomputing, on the other hand, might choose not to link here as the bar is higher for a prose article). If people browsed Wikipedia by looking in Special:Allpages, then yes your argument would be valid and Wikipedia would have to restrict itself to about as many articles as a paper encyclopædia. But they don't, they follow links from related pages to relevant content. If this really isn't the place to discuss this, perhaps you'd like to take this to WT:GNG? PT (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: you might want to read this essay which expresses a similar viewpoint; essentially, the reason WP:N is guideline and not policy is that it's a pragmatic tool, and is not perfect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phase Theory (talk • contribs) 02:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how including special interest information leads to oceans of links. Links to this page will only appear on pages that are related (no-one's going to link here from an article on wombats). If you're reading a page on, say, "Category:Usenet newsgroups in the comp.* hierarchy", "Programming competitions#Humorous" or "Retrocomputing", then implicitly you already have some level of interest. The way to manage navigability is not to exclude articles on the grounds of notability, rather notability should be used to inform the relevance decision of linking from another article (for instance, while the relevance of the CGC to the Category: example is low, category pages typically consist of a page of links anyway and so their relevance threshold is low. Retrocomputing, on the other hand, might choose not to link here as the bar is higher for a prose article). If people browsed Wikipedia by looking in Special:Allpages, then yes your argument would be valid and Wikipedia would have to restrict itself to about as many articles as a paper encyclopædia. But they don't, they follow links from related pages to relevant content. If this really isn't the place to discuss this, perhaps you'd like to take this to WT:GNG? PT (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can tell, the only theoretical justification for restricting the scope of Wikipedia according to a threshold of notability is the technical requirement of server space and its cost; therefore notability guidelines are about trading off space against usefulness. It is not just that I consider articles about memes less useful than an article about the CGC (incidentally, I was only using them as an example of something whose low value is almost universally agreed upon), it is also that as notability tends to zero, the number of items having at least that notability tends to infinity; there are lots of silly memes. We have a notability threshold because we don't have infinite space. None of this justifies our notability guidelines having an inherent systemic bias against certain classes of topic. You have split an irrelevant hair. Perhaps now you'd like to address the substance of my arguments? Incidentally, given your username, I just have to ask - were either of your entries ALS clones? :p PT (talk) 00:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - I started this article (My previous username was benkid77). It's still approx 90% like it was when I started it. In my defence, at the time I was a complete newbie to Wikipedia and therefore was not too familiar with the minimum standards required. Now I have over two years on-and-off Wikipedia editing experience, would I start this article now? The answer is no, for the simple reason that it is indeed a struggle to find reliable, trusted secondary sources for it. I also don't completely disagree with the deletion nomination. Given the current state of the article, I knew it would happen sooner or later, it was only a matter of time and quite rightly so. So, we have two choices, delete or keep. If it's deleted, I have the article backed up and some alternative web hosting available to put it on. I'm happy with that. However, in the Wikipedia tradition I guess I would not be doing my duty if at least I did not attempt some defense of the article.
I don't know if it's enough, but there is a book which has a couple of paragraphs on the competition The ZX Spectrum on your PC by Colin Woodcock. [2] [3]
The relevant excerpt from the book:-
The CSS community do do other things besides talking about Rolos. There's the annual comp.sys.sinclair Crap Games Competition, for example, which is always hosted (on a web site) by a CSS member. A celebration of the appalling quality of the contents of the Cascade Cassette 50 games compilation, CSSCGC has been running since 1996 and resulted in some quite dreadful games. The titles quite often speak for themselves: Appendix III 65 The Amazing Tony Blair Experiment Fuel Protest 2000 Lying Minesweeper Advanced Weapons Inspector Simulator Chuckle Brothers Golf The Crap Games Competition is now such an established event it even has its own web ring! You can check it out at http://r.webring.com/hub?ring=crapgameswebring.
Also, I'd argue the crap game compo is just as established as the International Obfuscated C Code Contest (Which also seems somewhat lacking in secondary sources) and quite a bit more established than Obfuscated_Perl_Contest. So to be fair I think if this crap game compo article is nominated then perhaps those articles should be too? I can't of course use those examples as a justification for keeping this article, but whatever your views on those articles, I think at least it illustrates that this particular article is a bit of a borderline case.
Anyway whatever the outcome, I will respect the decision, whatever is deemed best for the encyclopedia, is fine by me. I will check back to see the outcome and if needed will transfer the information to an external site. Thanks all Green Lane (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Woodcock's book is self-published (via CafePress), unfortunately. The Obfuscated Code contest articles do indeed need attention, but have the advantage of a large number of available sources [4]. If I find any kind of significant verification for the Crap Games Competition, I'll be all over it in its defense. Marasmusine (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment OK, thanks for the reply. Those are fair comments. I will have another look around to see if anything further can be found. I also think it may be that because the CGC is "whimsical" as opposed to the more "serious" obfuscated coding contests, means it is unlikely to be found in any serious publications, but again that is the nature of the competition. Green Lane (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - article seems adequately referenced and although it may not be of universal interest, that is neither the test of notability or the requirement for an article. Bonusballs (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which ones are adequate? I see groups and fansites (hell, there's even a friend's personal web page in there). Wenttomowameadow (talk) 05:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The World of Spectrum links look the best to me, it is the number 1 online resource for the ZX Spectrum (afaik). It is a respected resource and routinely referenced. Szzuk (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- World of Spectrum is an excellent site, but I don't think it would be considered a very good resource (it's really a community and fan site, albeit an outstanding one). It's also very closely associated with the competition. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- World of Spectrum is officially endorsed by the owners of the ZX Spectrum - AMSTrad. To the best of my knowledge AMSTrad haven't endorsed anybody else, the dialogue between the website and a multinational company makes it more than a fan site, it is a reliable source. Szzuk (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't at all. A one-off conversation asking for permission to distribute the system ROMs does not make a reliable source. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your reply begs the question - are there any RS for the ZX Spectrum at all? If WOS is the most extensive resource anywhere and it doesn't pass muster, what does? Szzuk (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The hundreds/thousands of books and media outlets that have written about it. WS:RS Wenttomowameadow (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak. This just means the teenage writer for the Wrexham Echo, who just left school and works on a dead end newspaper has more weight than the number 1 website used by many/most ZX Spectrum users. Szzuk (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No it doesn't. I didn't say that any book or newspaper is a reliable source. I linked you to WP:RS. WoS is an excellent resource for you and me, but useless as a reliable source for an encyclopedia, and even worse for establishing notability. You need mainstream press coverage for a notability argument, not a special interest fan site. The inherent quality of the resource means nothing if the content isn't authored by a scholar or recognised authority (the circular logic of "WoS is the main Spectrum site so the author is an authority doesn't work, read RS). Wenttomowameadow (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable Sources are great and necessary but there has to be a certain amount of context taken into consideration as well. For an article about the US Diplomatic policy in the Middle East, World of Spectrum would be a very poor and not at all reliable source. But in the much smaller universe of Sinclair/Spectrum-specific materials, WoS is as definitive as it gets. If Wikipedia, as an internet encyclopaedia, is to cover Internet-related materials (as it does in articles like Giant Enemy Crab and Leeeeeeeerooooy... Jeeenkins!) then you have to be realistic about not expecting to find references in the New York Times and other mainstream press. Bonusballs (talk) 09:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We're trying to establish notability here. Read WP:NOTABILITY. If the best reference to something you can find is in a special interest site for that field, it's not considered notable by Wikipedia. Please, do read WP:NOTABILITY. You've actually made an excellent argument for why this article should be deleted. There are no references to it in mainstream media. Leroy Jenkins however has been written about in PC Gamer Magazine, The Guardian and referenced in an episode of South Park. It's not even a very notable topic, but it blows this one out of the water. It doesn't matter how important CGC is in your personal value system, it has to be notable in terms of WP:NOTABILITY. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say this will close as no consensus. If it's delete we can examine whether WOS is a RS at DRV. Szzuk (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable Sources are great and necessary but there has to be a certain amount of context taken into consideration as well. For an article about the US Diplomatic policy in the Middle East, World of Spectrum would be a very poor and not at all reliable source. But in the much smaller universe of Sinclair/Spectrum-specific materials, WoS is as definitive as it gets. If Wikipedia, as an internet encyclopaedia, is to cover Internet-related materials (as it does in articles like Giant Enemy Crab and Leeeeeeeerooooy... Jeeenkins!) then you have to be realistic about not expecting to find references in the New York Times and other mainstream press. Bonusballs (talk) 09:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No it doesn't. I didn't say that any book or newspaper is a reliable source. I linked you to WP:RS. WoS is an excellent resource for you and me, but useless as a reliable source for an encyclopedia, and even worse for establishing notability. You need mainstream press coverage for a notability argument, not a special interest fan site. The inherent quality of the resource means nothing if the content isn't authored by a scholar or recognised authority (the circular logic of "WoS is the main Spectrum site so the author is an authority doesn't work, read RS). Wenttomowameadow (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak. This just means the teenage writer for the Wrexham Echo, who just left school and works on a dead end newspaper has more weight than the number 1 website used by many/most ZX Spectrum users. Szzuk (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The hundreds/thousands of books and media outlets that have written about it. WS:RS Wenttomowameadow (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your reply begs the question - are there any RS for the ZX Spectrum at all? If WOS is the most extensive resource anywhere and it doesn't pass muster, what does? Szzuk (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't at all. A one-off conversation asking for permission to distribute the system ROMs does not make a reliable source. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- World of Spectrum is officially endorsed by the owners of the ZX Spectrum - AMSTrad. To the best of my knowledge AMSTrad haven't endorsed anybody else, the dialogue between the website and a multinational company makes it more than a fan site, it is a reliable source. Szzuk (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- World of Spectrum is an excellent site, but I don't think it would be considered a very good resource (it's really a community and fan site, albeit an outstanding one). It's also very closely associated with the competition. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The World of Spectrum links look the best to me, it is the number 1 online resource for the ZX Spectrum (afaik). It is a respected resource and routinely referenced. Szzuk (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, or perhaps merge if an appropriate target can be found. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can only suggest a quick mention at ZX Spectrum#Community, using the RetroGamer Roundup quote, above. Marasmusine (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy to do that if the article does happen to get deleted. Although the competition is very much dominated by the ZX Spectrum, there have also been entries for other systems such as the Jupiter Ace, the Cambridge Z88, not to mention the ZX80, ZX81 etc... The competition is generally open to Sinclair systems and loose derivatives thereof, so in a way its scope is broader than just the ZX Spectrum. But I agree it's probably the most likely place where a mention can be fitted in, if it is "merged". Thanks to the "community" subsections, it seems appropriate. I found a few more minor things. I'll post them a bit later today, if the discussion is still open. Nothing of great notability, but I just want to conclude my argument before the debate closes. Thanks. Green Lane (talk) 14:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can only suggest a quick mention at ZX Spectrum#Community, using the RetroGamer Roundup quote, above. Marasmusine (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Usenet is the precursor to the world wide web...in fact the usenet peeps created the world wide web. I used to inhabit usenet as much as I now inhabit wp. The refs are ok, they demonstrate the competition has been in existence for many years and are properly recorded. Internet culture is odd sometimes, I don't feel the need to examine its oddity. Szzuk (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Finally, after a bit of searching I couldn't find much more on the subject from secondary sources, but for future reference, here's what I could find. Firstly, in the UK high-street magazine "Micro Mart", issue 1096, pages 102 & 103, there is a full review of "Smiler in Arrowe Land", a game I wrote myself specifically for and submitted to CSSCGC 2010. Thanks to the crap game competition, the game did get recognised in this reliable secondary source, although alas the review does not directly mention the competition itself, it is where the game originated from. I can't really mention this game in the article because I have a clear conflict of interest. I have scanned copies of the relevant pages.
- Second thing is that whereas the "obfuscated" competitions previously mentioned in this discussion do have some mention in books that are being published through recognised publishers, that is because they have the advanatage that C and PERL are still currently commercially viable systems and therefore still mentioned in books that are being printed. 8-bit home comupter systems are not commercially viable anymore, therefore the crap game competition is mentioned in the equivalent of books/magazine that can't exist because there is no commercial market anymore, but instead has been taken over by "special interest magazines" written by hobbyists etc.. Does this make them any less notable? With that in mind, there are several mentions of the competition in ZXF magazine. (I can find issue numbers etc.. if required). There's also a passing mention of the competition in the high-street magazine "Retro Gamer", issue 5, page 16, "It may even provide inspiration for those people wishing to enter this year's Crap Game competition." (referring to a negative review of the game Chase HQ), although this could be dismissed as "trivial". ZXPress.ru (in Russian) and "Fanzine Bytemaniacos" (in Spanish) also mention the competition, but again quite trivially, although this does show the competition is known about internationally. There's also a link to the competition in "The Guardan's" blog pages, although I was asked to remove that after creating the article, as it was deemed too trivial to mention. Finally there's also mention of the the competition on Bob Smith's pages http://www.bobs-stuff.co.uk/textonlygp.html Bob Smith is a game developer who has written commercial games for the ZX Spectrum, released under the Chronosoft label. So perhaps, his site could be considered a reliable reference?
- That pretty much exhuasts everything I've found. I'm not saying that the above complies with Wikipedia's stringent notability requirements, just that the subject is notable internationally (i.e. it is widely known about) within the retrogaming community. Apart from possibly replying to any further replies here, that pretty much concludes my input to the debate. I think at this point, that even if this article gets relisted, as the creator of it, I would not have anything further to add. All I can say is thanks for keeping the debate open long enough to allow me time to reply. Green Lane (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2011 (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.