As another Wikipedian who works on video games, I feel a bit honored and shamed by this article. Honored that the video game work done on Wikipedia is considered one of the better sources for video game history, and shamed at the inherent flaws in the system.

Yes an article about an old video game was deleted, and I can certainly see how that would frustrate those involved in its creation. However, Wikipedia was not meant to be the ultimate repository of video game knowledge. It does a decent job at it, but that's not it's only job and certainly not it's primary one. I believe it's hard to really fault Wikipedia for Threshold getting deleted when that is take that into account.

While many may find it easier to fault Wikipedia for such articles getting deleted, those active on the site will tell you it is very difficult to find suitable sources for older video games. The truth of the matter is that all Wikipedians are at the mercy of reliable sources; if they don't exist or you can't find them, then you can't write about the topic. Thankfully, I stumbled across your magazine—among a few other UK ones—some time ago, and was very pleased to find some excellent articles detailing some of the information I was looking for.

In short, if the gaming press is unhappy about the lack of video game history on Wikipedia, the best thing that can be done is to run more articles about it. Of course, contemporary topics are where the money is for gaming magazines and websites, but I believe retro topics would still be well received. And I guarantee there editors on Wikipedia that could use the extra sources.