This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
I am looking forward to the re-review process. I put a good amount of time into tracking down the various sources to support the article as a valid topic. If I'm wrong, I'll be surprised, but accepting of the decision. I can say this -- if it is not good enough in its current state, I am doubtful that there is much more out there to work with, in terms of reliable sourcing. -
AppleBsTime (
talk)
23:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)reply
These sources are the same kind of junk that was in the original version. Nothing about these is any more in-depth than what was in there previously. The Buffalo News, Miami Herald, and Orlando Sentinel sources are all basically reprinted ad copy and contain zero original thought. The Computer Entertainer source is literally a sentence. The PC Mag Asia source is the same kind of listicle as the "5 More Nintendo Controllers You've Never Heard Of" that was in the original. This should never have been restored against consensus without discussion. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)23:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)reply
The "consensus" that you mention was extremely weak in the first place. If these sources are weak, then there are a host of other articles in Wikipedia that should be slashed and burned, because they utilize the same caliber of sources. Since "PressTheButtons.com" is now considered an "unreliable source", I just removed it from six different Wikipedia articles, for example. -
AppleBsTime (
talk)
19:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)reply
If these sources are weak, then there are a host of other articles in Wikipedia that should be slashed and burned, because they utilize the same caliber of sources. That's correct. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)00:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)reply
I merged some sources and I'm restoring the redirect. After reading through the sources myself, there's no way these blurbs can be construed as
significant coverage. There is room for some light expansion in the larger list, but I don't think it's necessary. Be careful to avoid interpretative claims like "Despite upbeat press coverage in the spring of 1989", which is
original research. (not
watching, please {{ping}}) czar21:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)reply