Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lunar Magic (3rd 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lunar Magic

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

Unsourced, original research article about a video game hack/editor. Unable to find reliable sources with which to establish notability, - Mr X 01:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ROM hacking.(Update: see below.) This is a nice piece of software, but if sources can't be found then it won't be able to have it's own article. The previous redirect to Super Mario World was not helpful, however ( I was looking for information on this a while back, and discovered nothing at all at the SMW page!) At least the Rom hacking page deals with what Lunar Magic is used for, and in addition the page has a screenshot of the program itself. --Yellow1996 (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This was deleted at the previous AfD discussion. I don't see the notability issues address in this recreated version. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 03:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No point in redirection, since there is so little coverage on it that it doesn't warrant mentioning in any other article. I was the one who did the last AFD, and ever since, all I can find are unreliable sources and that one fluff piece. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not feeling notability Calqwatch (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It gets significant coverage in an 1up article. [1] Search for the word "lunar" if you just want to skim through the mentions of it. Found news coverage of a guy using the program to propose to his girlfriend. Anyway, lot of results to look through. Surely more to be found. This seems like a notable program. The custom search results that list everything the video game wikiproject says are reliable sources, is found [2] in case anyone wants to help look for sources. Dream Focus 16:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 16:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That article originally came from a personal blog called SNES Central, which would seem to be an unreliable source and a source that is not independent of the subject. - Mr X 16:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the article as it is now. I added some sources I believe will prove its notable. [3] Dream Focus 16:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that in light of the additional sources, I would concede that the software may be notable. Personally, I would like to see at least two third party sources (not just gaming blogs) that cover the subject in more detail. I'm not sufficiently convinced of notability such that I would withdraw the AfD nomination, especially since two other users have !voted to delete and the article was deleted in a previous AfD. - Mr X 18:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary - that the article has been since accepted by 1up and published as part of their own content means that a reliable source has tied their name to the content, which should count towards being noted by a RS. Diego (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another source: Gaming Hacks published by O'Reylly. Diego (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Nice job on the cleanup! :) I'm convinced. I now change my !vote in favour of keeping it. --Yellow1996 (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see the notability either. Perhaps the notability of the level editor is being confused with the notability of the game? WikiuserNI (talk) 13:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Reception section shows reliable sources commenting on it, offering it praise. Dream Focus 14:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for assuming I didn't bother reading them. The articles mention it in passing, or give far from significant coverage. WikiuserNI (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They specifically mention it and give it praise. A good review from a reliable source counts towards notability, they don't need to write out some long article about it. Dream Focus 23:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage has to be significant, where it's mentioned it's mostly in passing and where the article is specifically about it, it's pretty brief. WikiuserNI (talk) 11:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Getting praise from reliable sources is significant. The dictionary defines the word "significant" [4] as "having meaning", "having or likely to have influence or effect : important". Its important. Significantly doesn't just mean long, the number of words you can write about something not a valid way to judge it. Dream Focus 15:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a weak one, but there does seem to be the bare-minimum amount of third party coverage present on it. Barely enough to pass the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 17:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt: When did 1UP become a reliable source? p b p 18:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:VG/RS, there's definitely consensus that its considered reliable. If you literally want to know "when", I'd have to do more digging, but I'm pretty sure I've been using it for years under the understanding that it is reliable. Sergecross73 msg me 18:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Taking a closer look it has been listed at WP:VG/RS since mid December 2007 (over 5 years ago) and I am not aware of any significant challenge against it being reliable during that time. Do you have any reason in particular to think that the site is not reliable and why the existing consensus is wrong?--174.93.160.57 (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Multiple independent RSes are apparent. This meets WP:GNG. I do see that it was definitely in very rough shape when Mr.X nom-ed it, though. -Thibbs (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2013 (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.