I really respect how strict Wikipedia is about secondary sources and avoiding using your own research but it's quite irritating how bad that is for articles about obscure video game history.
I am not allowed to cite the business registration for a long-defunct game company that made a bunch of GBC shovelware before going out of business four years later. An official, legal document that anyone with a brain would accept as true. Because it's a primary source. I'm supposed to find local newspaper articles (none exist) or interviews (none exist) and if they don't exist, the page can't exist due to "lack of notability."
Except they made 20 video games and 18 of them were published by either EA or Infogrames (Atari). That's not insignificant.
Frustrating that this wealth of information seems determined to stop you from adding reasonably verifiable information about things that weren't really widely talked about. It's a bad resource for video games information, but its userbase is so large and its history so long that it is by default also one of the largest. An astounding number of articles have existed for 20 years with next to nothing on them, and people who don't care would rather delete the articles than let someone who does put something on there that doesn't conform to the same standards they'd hold a current event article to.
Idk. Might just do what I want and deal with the reverts as they come.
