Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Jordan: Paranormal Investigator (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 No Consensus.(non-admin closure)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Jordan: Paranormal Investigator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 December 3 I am relisting this article that was previously deleted at AFD for a fresh consensus. The article was recreated and deleted per G4 but was not sufficiently identical. As the DRV closer I am neutral. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I fixed the links for the JA reviews. I'd be more leery of their reviews since they sell games, but considering that these are freeware and not offered from the website as far as I can see, I think that they would be OK. I know that reviews from JA have been accepted as RS in the past. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The reviews are pretty much solely from two websites: Adventure Gamers and Just Adventure. Both are sites that have an editorial board go over their articles and reviews, so they would pass the RS guideline as far as I know- although I am slightly leery of JA. It did win at least one AGS award, which is probably one of the biggest awards in the "point and click" gaming world right now. That mixed together is just enough to where I'd say that this passes notability guidelines at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Reception section and two IndieGames awards. Besides, improves our coverage of reviewed freeware video games. Brandmeister^talk 12:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. All of the sources listed in the article are listed at WP:WikiProject_Video_games/sources as notable and verifiable sources (Adventure Gamers, Just Adventure, PC Zone, 1UP.com, PC Gamer (UK), Rock, Paper, Shotgun, IndieGames.com, and GameSetWatch). Adventure Gamers called it "a popular and critically acclaimed series of amateur adventures", 1UP.com named it one of "the best games that money can't buy", PC Gamers listed it in their Year of Games feature, and IndieGames.com gave it two best of freeware games awards. Plus, as the article has been updated to show, it won many Adventure Game Studio awards (which, as shown in the article, are covered by Adventure Gamers, GameSetWatch, and IndieGames.com, which as shown above, are all Wikiproject approved reliable sources). That makes it meet the first criteria for WP:Notability_(software) as "the software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field." In addition, it was reviewed by PC Gamer (UK) magazine, Adventure Gamers, and Just Adventure, which are all Wikiproject approved reliable sources. This makes it also meet the third criteria of WP:Notability_(software) as "The software is the subject of multiple printed third party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers." JenniBees (talk) 19:53, 15 December 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) 21:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article had passing coverage and reviews, but not significant coverage. Adventure Game Studio awards are not significant in their field, and are limited to games created using the Adventure Game Studio software, which itself is not significant in its field. Significance and notability are different, although the first is a component of the second. Overall the coverage for this game was too minor to merit an article, it should be merged or deleted altogether. It barely merits notice in the larger field of video games, adventure games, what have you. Andrevan@ 04:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WEB, WP:SPAM, oft-recreated article about utterly non-notable online freeware game, created by an account with an apparent interest in promoting the game. The smattering of routine blog reviews and an extremely obscure award (only offered to games made with a particular software) are again foisted upon us as supposed proof of notability--on the contrary, the continued weakness of sources and utter lack of anything resembling mainstream recognition and coverage AFTER OVER NINE YEARS strongly confirms that this wasn't notable, isn't notable now, and barring some complete miracle, isn't going to become notable in future. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:57, 23 December 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, SarahStierch (talk) 03:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This game seems to have substantial reviews so, if the review sources are suitable, the notability criteria seem to have been met. The relevant WikiProject seems to regard the sources as independent and reliable (thanks to JenniBees for guiding me there) and I have no reason to doubt this. So, given we may presume an article is merited, is this article suitable for keeping? Yes it is, because it is pretty well written and referenced. Thincat (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:03, 24 December 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Tough call on this one. Some of the sources do not really provide significant coverage in describing the game or offering any particular on it. However, the numerous, repeated awards for this freeware series and coverage in independent and reliable sources (specifically [1] and the JustAdventure reviews) amongst the other coverage pushes me to retain this article. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:50, 31 December 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.