Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hocus Pocus (video game)

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 3D Realms#As Apogee Software. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hocus Pocus (video game)

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

Deprodded with "sources available, can be purchased still", but no proof of sources was given and being available for purchase is not an indicator of notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Needs some help from WP:VG to clean up, but seems notable. Game is currently sold on GOG [1]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Gaming4JC (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any sources? How does it "seem" notable? Being sold is not notability. -- ferret (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing against WP:VG/RS I see your point. There are a few sources [2][3][4][5] and an appearance in an old magazine [6]. But only IGN would be notable and it is more or less an IGN stub. - Gaming4JC (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 3D Realms. Best known as an Apogee (3D Realms) game unless someone digs up some offline sources. It did not have any meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search, and there's nothing sourced to merge to its parent. It'll only be worth a mention if we can find more coverage, but it remains a good search term. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 23:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As the dePRODer, my research at the time indicated at least the need for keeping as a Redirect. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - The Herald (here I am) 13:15, 31 January 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.