Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dick Vitale's "Awesome Baby" College Hoops

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 redirect to Dick Vitale#Video games. RL0919 (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Vitale's "Awesome Baby" College Hoops

[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)

I’m not used to editing articles for video games, but I am pretty sure this article fails WP:GNG. The article only has 3 references, with one of which being a link to a YouTuber (Scott the Woz) who made a video on the game. Speaking of which, the article is almost fully dedicated to Scott, with the only exception being the infobox and some of the lead. I don’t really see how this game is notable enough to have an article on it. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. this isn’t my area of expertise. Micro (Talk) 07:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Micro (Talk) 07:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GameRankings indicates no magazine reviews or similar. From more-modern reliable sources, the only one is a paragraph void of any significant details at GameInformer. I'm at work, so I can't guarantee that's it, but I think the paucity probably indicates this topic is not notable. --Izno (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Sega Genesis games, as it's on the list there, as an alternative to deletion - anyone looking for it can find some basic info like who made it and in what year on that list. This is pretty common with sports games of the era when various celebrity endorsements were everywhere to get games made - Sega actively pursued that in order to combat Nintendo's third-party support. It's worth noting as a person who has researched Sega extensively for this encyclopedia that of all those games with celebrity names, this one has never even been mentioned in any of the articles I've found. I did a WP:BEFORE check as well and came up with three magazines that had a print advertisement for it (but no article) and otherwise a couple of unreliable sources, which tells me this game is not particularly worthy of note. As wordy as the article title is, I still think it's a viable redirect to the list which has its entry. Red Phoenix ^talk 20:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mobygames lists three contemporary magazine reviews. I'm leaning toward Keep here. Phediuk (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Dick Vitale#In popular culture~~ Dick Vitale#Video games as a plausible redirect (with added info from this article) where it would have a better place to go than the Genesis list-of...though maybe that section itself should be renamed "Endorsements". Otherwise, it's indeed a game that didn't get much attention at the time, but with a more comical but affectionate current notability. Nate • (chatter) 00:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC) (updated with re-org of this section Nate • (chatter) 17:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC))[reply]
- While I prefer my suggested redirect more, I'm willing to call this my second choice. To Phediuk's thoughts on the reviews, it's nice if there are three vintage reviews, but if they are just the one paragraph on the list, that to me is not enough for significant coverage; it's common for gaming magazines to blast through games they don't want to go in depth with with a one-paragraph review. The newest two are from unreliable sources - one is an independent site, and consensus for WP:VG/S is that Sega-16 is only reliable for interviews and articles and reviews by Ken Horowitz—this one is not one of those reviews. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dick Vitales article and section about video games. The sources may exist, but unless/until anyone gets access to them, it’s pretty much impossible to write a properly sourced article with any sort of content in it. And with the sources being locked away into decades-old print magazines, there’s no indication that ever obtaining them is likely. Redirect for now, and spinout if/when someone writes an article according to those sources (And not that crap by some non-notable Youtuber.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looks like it was reviewed in at least one magazine: [1] SportingFlyer T·C 08:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Existence does not equal notability; surely we need more than a mention or two, or a single review. Merge/redirect. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2019 (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.