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. Though noted that it's mostly on faith that the MobyGames review listings check out. czar 09:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Beast[edit]

Battle Beast (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)

Abandonware game. Only sources are to abandonware listings and play sites like Moby Games. No significant independent coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A game from that time period is unlikely to have coverage online. Have you checked for offline coverage before this AFD nomination? --Izno (talk) 04:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  To the extent that I checked a couple of standard periodical indexes, yes. Even if the source text from that time would be offline, the indexing would be online through research libraries (although not necessarily through Google). I don't think WP:BEFORE requires exhaustive prove-a-negative-type searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, before does not. However, it appears there's offline coverage--see the Highbeam link above. Couldn't tell you whether it's significant. There's also a few nuggets in the WP:VG/RS search. So while I won't !vote yet since I haven't had a chance to review any of these results, I might suggest there's notability for this game. --Izno (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, and I saw that one result from Knight-Ridder. In the Highbeam search it is listed multiple times but it is clearly multiple hits for the same article in multiple papers in the same chain. I didn't believe it would be considered significant coverage and ignored mentioning it That was technically incorrect in making the nom, and I apologize. I should have specified "..and one old short review at time of game's release, not creating sustained coverage."

  It looks like there's a few others too, not based on the Ridder review. Any way, I'll take a closer look later. --Izno (talk) 05:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Mobygames lists plenty of reviews from magazine sources: [1]. Probably enough to meet notability requirements. --The1337gamer (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed. --Izno (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Review of the linked Mobygames (and a few places elsewhere) indicates that there are sufficient WP:RS to meet the WP:GNG. Keep. --Izno (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - In addition to the reviews linked on Mobygames, there's a review in the December 1995 issue of Next Generation which I neglected to add to the article. Will try to add that in within the next couple of days.--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the Next Generation review to the article as planned.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2017 (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.