Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nintendo Super System

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 and potentially merge. As noted by Mz7, who had initially closed this discussion, AfD is not optimized for discussing editorial decisions like merging—especially not when multiple articles are involved. Consensus seems to be in favor of merging at least the original article, but as the others were added late and "merge" outcomes at AfD are not really binding, I'd rather not slap a bunch of merging tags on them. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Super System

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

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

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

Article topic is not the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. I'd be fine with a redirect, but @Hahnchen thought the redirect to Super Nintendo Entertainment System accessories was "half-assed". Have fun finding sources. Please {{ping}} me if you offline and non-English refs. – czar 00:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Merge VS. System + PlayChoice-10 + Nintendo Super System into Nintendo arcade systems (or some analoguous title), or maybe Nintendo coin-operated systems (to include Super Famicom Box in the merge) - It's correct to say that these don't have a lot of individual content but they are definitely notable and the topic might be better presented to readers and fleshed out as part of a group article. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - the subject is lacking in both sources and content. Sergecross73 msg me 01:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Salvidrim. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had initially non-admin closed this as a procedural closure, but since it has been contested by the nominator, I am reversing the closure. The closing rationale was this:

Extended content

This is a deletion discussion; it's purpose is to form a consensus over whether the selected article should be deleted or not, and if not, it's to decide what alternatives to deletion are applicable. While the nomination began on valid deletion grounds, the arising discussion has since brought about a budding merge consensus concerning articles not currently nominated for deletion and a destination title that is currently nonexistent. While "merge" is indeed available as an alternative to deletion, it is only actionable as an AfD outcome if all of the source pages are included in the deletion nomination. Of course, it is possible to relist and nominate those articles for deletion as a part of this discussion right now, but the proposed solution is a merge, not deletion. With all of this in mind, it is my view that AfD is no longer the appropriate venue for this discussion, and I encourage all participants to continue the merge discussion at the appropriate talk page per WP:MERGEPROP. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully submitted, Mz7 (talk) 03:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That contest was Talk:Nintendo_Super_System#Merge_proposal, for the record. And I did nominate the article for deletion, not merge. – czar 04:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally prefer if the merge went to a "console variants" area of SNES, at least for now, but an alternative is to send it to Nintendo arcade machines (just mainspaced), which could potentially carry the others. (Or I re-scope that article back to arcade games and we do my preference, the SNES merge. @Salvidrim!, Sergecross73, and Bahb the Illuminated: – czar 04:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is being procedurally relisted to allow appropriate notices on other articles included in this discussion. ~ Rob^Talk 00:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob^Talk 00:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I procedurally nominate ~~Vs. System~~ Nintendo VS. System and PlayChoice-10 for deletion. Without proper notices on those pages, it is not appropriate to apply a consensus developed here among a relatively small number of editors to those articles as well. ~ Rob^Talk 00:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13, I don't think we need the procedure—we have consensus to merge this one article and if it even comes to it, the other articles will be bold merges. If anyone objects to a bold merge, we can discuss it at that time. – czar 04:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vs. System is substantial enough that I doubt a bold merge would be appropriate. This avoids splitting the discussion in two (half here, half at a later merge discussion). As always, an administrator is free to close if they disagree with the relist, but I'd think it makes a lot more sense to wait a week and have a definitive answer on what the Nintendo arcade systems article will become than to close with half a consensus. ~ Rob^Talk 04:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13, Vs. System is substantial enough I think you meant to nominate Nintendo VS. System, not Vs. System. It isn't substantial—it's almost entirely unsourced. – czar 17:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you're correct that I nominated the wrong article. I had gone off of the links in the first merge rationale. It's corrected now. ~ Rob^Talk 17:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 1980s arcade systems fall into the hole of "things you can't Google". For arcade systems, reliable sources will be found in trade magazines such as Play Meter and Replay. This is the cover of Replay's August 1985 issue. This GameSetWatch article suggests that the VS System was also covered in Replay's August 1986 issue. - hahnch e n 10:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WorldCat, the magazine (ISSN 1534-2328) is only held by the LoC and the Strong Museum. I asked the museum to pull the August 1985 "cover story" issue and they reported back that there does not appear to be an article but two multi-page ads, as you may imagine for reporting in a trade publication. I don't think it's fair to make "keep" arguments based on hunches instead of physical articles, or to make a practice of requiring that others find sources that you Google. (And a project that requires archives research like this really borders on original historical work anyway.) For the 1986 article, there's no indication that it is about the VS. machine and not just Rare/Nintendo's relationship, so I'd rather not waste the museum's and my time. – czar 19:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This ebay auction for a (grossly overpriced) copy of Play Meter July 1989 features a PlayChoice cover, and also a snapshot of the article within. Same for the August 1988 issue. The PlayChoice also features on the cover of the July 1990 issue. I think pointing to reliable sources that I don't have access to is perfectly valid behaviour at AFD, I did the same when opposing the Menacer "merge" last year. - hahnch e n 22:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah for those willing to track them down (and confirm which of your hunches were right and wrong). You just linked to "very rare" magazines listed at $100/issue on eBay. The only citation actually confirmed is some mention of PlayChoice in the first link. The other two are hunches. If you're not going to actually check the citations or show that there is actual material there, then the claim that something might be there means nothing. I don't see why you're opposed to a merge. This could aways build back out in the off chance that the Strong funds me to dig through their magazine collection, because if you actually think we'd be better off with an unsourced article while we wait for someone to do the archival work of building a story from these old (who knows how reliable) trade magazines... – czar 23:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a merge discussion, that's an editorial decision that can be had anywhere. You took it to AFD after blanking multiple articles without discussion. I believe the leads provided show notability, and yes, I think unsourced articles on notable, verifiable non-controversial subjects are better than blanks. I opposed the Menacer "merge" before your expansion. You state that the leads above mean nothing, yet I contend, and no disrespect to the editors above, that they're much more useful than the other !votes in this discussion. - hahnch e n 00:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a merge discussion. I only nominated NSS. Rob nominated PlayChoice and VS. (despite my opposition) alongside it a few days ago but only to make sure that editors watching the page (such as yourself) would be fine with a merge—one that wasn't even on my radar. Unsourced articles are against WP's core principles so I don't find that position tenable. In fact, from my experience, the more we leave unsourced articles up, the more lazy writers from our so-called RS appropriate unsourced details and then we're back to citogenesis. I don't think your search for sources means nothing and I appreciate your doing it, but I wish that your stance was a little closer to a reasonable next step for the article and for verifiable information rather than a moonshot for an article that will not be written because it would depend, at the very least, on very obscure sources. – czar 00:28, 11 August 2015 (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.