Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liero (2nd nomination)

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liero[edit]

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

I used to play this game a lot with my brother in the early 2000s, and it has a great nostalgic value to me. However, even I have to face the fact that there appears to be scant reliable sources about this game.

The current sources include: wikis, self-published sources, unreliable reviews, and a bunch of dead links.

I tried to search for additional sources and was unable to come up with anything.

It's time to have a discussion about this game. :) Coin945 (talk) 03:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oh my! Good ol' Liero. I found a couple of pretty reliable sources mentioning it in passing at least:
- https://www.aamulehti.fi/kulttuuri/muistatko-viela-nama-suomalaiset-klassikkopelit-nama-100-paasevat-tampereen-tulevaan-pelimuseoon-24144926/
  - Strong keep it was chosen as one of 100 significant Finnish games for the opening of the Finnish Museum of Games, how shoudl the game gather more relevancy?
- https://www.pelit.fi/artikkelit/16261/
- https://books.google.ch/books?id=wplcAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT41&dq=suomen+pelit+liero&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLqves6uHZAhVSVWMKHWHMD7wQ6AEINjAC#v=onepage&q=suomen%20pelit%20liero&f=false
- http://vapriikki.fi/pelimuseo-2/pelit/
Most likely the following would also mention it if a copy could be found/borrowed?
- https://books.google.ch/books?id=T1tiCQAAQBAJ
- https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinivalkoinen_pelikirja

Manelolo (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I want to add some sources here that I have found - it is strange to me that the game is so popular while it seems very hard to locate adequate sourcing. Due to that paradox I spent a bit of time digging deeper to find bits and pieces. Not sure if it's enough just yet.--Coin945 (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- https://www.cnews.cz/hra-liero-zabij-cerva-plamenometem-ci-kyselinou-nostalgie/
- https://www.root.cz/clanky/historie-vyvoje-pocitacovych-her-58-cast-hra-liero-a-jeji-klony/
- Small mention in book
- http://www.chip.de/downloads/Liero_74852703.html
- A passage about the game physics of Liero on page 306
- Inspired Noita and kugeln.io
- An indie game before the term "indie game" existed
- Mobygames lists 5 reviews, all of which I believe are unreliable
  - beside the questionable terminology and hysterical overfocus on binary "reliability" in general, it is a shame that we still have no gamehippo article, considering its impact in its prime years. Shaddim (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep: influential game with long history and many reliable sources (many paper which are hard to locate) Shaddim (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC) PS: about dead links, these are no reason for questipning the game or these now dead but still valid sources. Also, please check the Internet archive for mementos of them[reply]
- - It seems unlikely for a 1998 freeware game to have lots of print sources.--Coin945 (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - the print magazines of the yesteryears hat regularly columns of free games. I would be surprised if it would not been covered in multiple magazines worldwide and also included on coverdiscs and compilatiosn. Shaddim (talk) 11:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Info: FYI, ran InternetArchiveBot on the article and it rescued 16 web sources from the archive so should help verifiablity. Manelolo (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears the nom wanted cleanup. Szzuk (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2018 (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.