Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bez-MX

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. Sourcing has been found to exist. This does not preclude discussion of a merger if this would be better covered somewhere else, but support for deletion isn't clear Star Mississippi 12:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bez-MX[edit]

[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)

DePRODed with the rationale that coverage of the game in two reviews meets WP:GNG - I was unable to find any additional reviews on Archive.org, and I think that two reviews is insufficient to show notability. The Computer Gaming World and Softalk reviews are in-depth, but the mention in Softline is very brief and is largely about the developer, and coverage of the game there may be summarized as 'this game is coming out at some point and is based on defense projects by Ronald Reagan'. The article could be redirected to List of Apple II games, but I don't think non-notable entries should be on the list. Pinging involved editors - article creator @BOZ:, @Cunard:, who removed the PROD, and @Cocobb8:, who added the PROD. Waxworker (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Even if there are two potentially reliable journal sources, WP:AGEMATTERS. I don't see any lasting coverage of the video game after its release. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at WP:AGEMATTERS and that seems to be pertaining to older sources becoming less accurate over time, rather than having anything to do with needing more recent sources for lasting coverage. BOZ (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AGEMATTERS doesn't apply here, that's more about the changing perception of events, not an old video game. You could argued WP:SUSTAINED perhaps. Not sure I agree with it, but it would be a plausible application at least. Sergecross73 msg me 15:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I changed my vote to a keep per other's arguments. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - undecided on notability, but leaning towards not retaining the article. It's so short and vague that it hardly conveys anything to the reader, and it borders on COPYVIO territory in the way that the reception is largely lazy copy/pastes of review content. I could be persuaded otherwise if someone showed improvement was possible, but the article was created 4 years ago by an active editor, so I'm not hopeful that's happening. Sergecross73 msg me 15:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The article's "Reception" section has been improved. Cunard (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That is a...minor upgrade, sure. Sergecross73 msg me 12:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Got non-trivial review coverage in Softalk and Computer Gaming World but still falls short of the typical threshold for passing GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which says (in part):
A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
- "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
- "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. ...
Analysis of the sources and the general notability guideline
Bez-MX received two reviews: a 499-word review from Computer Gaming World and an 834-word review from Softalk. Each of these sources meet the "significant coverage" requirement of the general notability guideline.
The general notability guideline says that "multiple sources are generally expected". wikt:multiple defines the word as meaning "more than one". The "multiple sources" requirement is also met.
There is no requirement to have more than two sources because the two sources combined provide 1,333 words of coverage about Bez-MX. These are from high-quality, highly-circulated gaming publications. Computer Gaming World had a circulation of 300,000, while Softalk had a circulation of 150,000.
The two reviews Bez-MX received were published four months apart which is sustained coverage. However, there is no requirement for articles about creative works like games, books, films, and television shows to meet Wikipedia:Notability#Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time in having reviews published years later. That is because reviews are not the "Brief bursts of news coverage" discussed in the guideline. Reviews provide critical analysis of the creative work. Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary is applicable.
Sources
1. Shaw, Luther (July–August 1982). "Micro-Reviews: Bez-MX". Computer Gaming World. Vol. 2, no. 4. pp. 34–35. Retrieved 2024-05-14 – via Internet Archive.
  This is a 499-word review of Bez-MX. The review notes: "The real strength of BEZ-MX is in the advanced game which requires planning. In addition to the elements in the basic game, players of the advanced game must maintain industrial production in a war situation. Players assign the population of their countries to work on the farm, factory, airfield, or city. You can have the people work in these areas (which will help keep military goods in production) or you can hide your population in shelters (perserving population but ending production)."
2. Hunter, David (March 1982). "Reviews". Softalk. Vol. 2. p. 103. Retrieved 2024-05-14 – via Internet Archive.
  This is an 834-word review of Bez-MX. This page notes that David Hunter wrote the review. The review notes: "There is scoring in Bez-MX to determine who wins, though a low score does not necessarily indicate a badly played game. It is easy to rack up points bombing cities and farms, but destroying the more crucial things like the runway and factory are what help you win the game."
3. Article that does not provide significant coverage:
  1. "New Players". Softline. Vol. 1, no. 2. November 1981. p. 2. Retrieved 2024-05-14 – via Internet Archive.
    The article provides four words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "The first two to look for are Bez-Mx and Bet-J, both based on current defense projects that President Reagan has given the go-ahead to in real life. Besnard is excited because he feels they're great strategy and action games. You lay down your strategy at the beginning of the game and then modify that strategy during real-time using game paddles. Bez-Mx and Bez-I should he available in December."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bez-MX to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the arguments of Cunard regarding the GNG. If consensus finds against retaining the article regardless, then ~~I would suggest~~ a merge to the List of Apple II games would be preferable to deletion per WP:PRESERVE and to provide a starting point should further sources materialize in the future. BOZ (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete - per WP:THREE. As my comments above mention, the sourcing available isn't enough to sustain an article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Apple II games, it's close but not quite enough coverage to meet GNG. --Mika1h (talk) 04:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:THREE is an essay that says to provide the three best sources. It does not say that three sources are needed. On the section of the talk page titled "why is three better than two?", the author wrote, "I don't think there's anything magic about three, but it seemed like a good number. My suggestion if people insist on three and not two, is to remind them that this is just an essay and people shouldn't be slaves to it."
The AfD nominator acknowledges that "the Computer Gaming World and Softalk reviews are in-depth". The sources combined provide 1,333 words of coverage about the subject. Since the Computer Gaming World and Softalk magazines are reputable and had wide circulation, they are good enough to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline since "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage". Aside from the AfD nominator, editors who have said the game does not meet the notability guideline have not explained why they think this. Do they think the sources are not high quality enough? Do they think the sources are not in-depth enough? Do they think that more than two sources are needed?
A merge to List of Apple II games would be better than deletion per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. However, a merge would result in the loss of content to comply with the due weight policy.
Cunard (talk) 05:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles with more coverage have been deleted for lack of sourcing. The fact is that keeping articles with this little sourcing is not the consensus of WP:VG and would be considered unusual in the best of times. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This response still does not explain why these two sources are insufficient to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Do you think the two sources are not reputable enough? Do you think the two sources are not in-depth enough? Do you think more than two sources are needed? Or is there another reason I have not listed here? At AfD, articles with two high quality in-depth reliable sources usually are considered notable, so a Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games deviation from the general notability guideline ratified by the broader community would explain why some editors here have a higher bar. There is no subject-specific notability guideline for video games, so the general notability guideline is the one to follow. Cunard (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware THREE is an essay, but that doesn't automatically make it invalid - quite the opposite, I would think this is exactly the sort of scenario that it was created for. As I noted, the sourcing is so brief that the writer(s) can't even muster up coherent article about the subject. I've read the article. All it says is that it was a game that involves shooting and two reviewers thought it was okay. That's...almost nothing of substance. If that's all that can be extrapolated from these sources, then no, I don't believe it to be significant coverage. And even if it was significant coverage, that doesn't automatically save it from valid merge/redirect stances. What I'm saying falls within the points of WP:MERGEREASON as well. Sergecross73 msg me 18:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the three sources in the article, there is potential for a decent expansion. (I know this wasn't your only argument, but as I do plan to expand the article, I felt the need to comment). Skyshiftertalk 18:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Skyshifter - I'm open to changing my mind if someone proves it, but I kind of figured if it was possible, it would be done by now. Ping me if you work on it before the AFD closes and I'll revisit my stance. Sergecross73 msg me 18:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Context matters, and for a 1981 game released for the Apple II, I don't see why we shouldn't consider two reliable, independent and significant coverage sources enough to establish notability. Skyshiftertalk 22:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The two reviews listed above by Cunard are sufficient for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk)
Keep per Somebodyidkfkdt. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:55, 21 May 2024 (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.