Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shrek Smash n' Crash Racing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 03:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shrek Smash n' Crash Racing[edit]
- Shrek Smash n' Crash Racing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tagged for notability for over 5 years; couldn't eastablish notability. Boleyn (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Separate IGN reviews for the Nintendo DS, GameBoy Advance and PlayStation 2 versions. Also; Games Radar review. Metacritic's subpages [1] [2] indicate it was reviewed in PSM Magazine and Nintendo Gamer also. Someoneanother 14:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Yet another themed racer. Not particularly significant in terms of WP:NSOFT. And yes, it's been reviewed -- big deal, consumer products do get reviewed. Doesn't show notability. -- BenTels (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There's strong consensus at WP:VG that detailed reviews count towards notability, and there's consensus than these sources are reliable at WP:VG/RS. It may be a bland, cookie-cutter product, but it's still getting sufficient coverage. Being original isn't a criteria for meeting the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 13:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I'm well aware of the fact that there is a conceptual fault in the Wikipedia assumption of notability as recorded in WP:GNG that gives consumer products a free pass. Doesn't mean I have to agree that a totally non-notable thirteen-to-a-dozen game is notable simply because a lot of reviewers have taken the trouble to say that it is a non-notable thirteen-to-a-dozen game. And therefore I will not. -- BenTels (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're free to do as you chose, but don't expect any closing Admin fo act in favor of your own personal subjective definition of notability. (Where does one draw the line in interpreting notability according to "originality" like that? Would New Super Mario Bros. 2 be too much like New Super Mario Bros. so it's not worth it's own article? Or every yearly iteration of games like Call of Duty?) Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're making a mistake here -- your argument regarding an admin agreeing with me or not suggests that you think I am trying to win a contest, which I am not. To answer your far more sensible question of where one is to draw the line, one might begin by actually reading the reviews being offered in order to address the grave conceptual error that exists in WP:GNG. This error, you see, is the following: when you strip the guideline to its essentials, what it boils down to is "if a lot of people are talking about X, then X must be worth talking about". Which sounds reasonable, but completely misses the point that those same people might be saying that X really isn't worth talking about. And that occurs often with consumer products (video games, but also books, movies, cars and so on), because they are reviewed exactly for the purpose of telling people whether or not they are worthwhile. But GNG ignores that and opts simply for counting the number of people talking about X. So if you have, say, a video game and 15 reviewers (let's call them domain experts for the occasion) saying that it is a mediocre game and not very noteworthy at all, then GNG turns around and says "15 people are talking about it, so it must be notable" et voila, the thing becomes notable for not being notable. So how do you compensate for that? Well, as I say, you could start by actually taking into account what reviewers are saying rather than just the fact that they are saying something. And no, that is not as black-and-white as GNG often makes things. But then, there is no good reason that it should be so black-and-white. -- BenTels (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Well, as I say, you could start by actually taking into account what reviewers are saying" - This is what I'm against. WP:GNG just asks for significant coverage, not what the coverage is saying. There's no precedent for interpreting the GNG like that. Furthermore, I'm not saying you're "trying to win a contest", I'm just saying that you appear to have cared enough about this topic to participate in this discussion, and if you cared enough to participate, you may as well participate with a rationale that an Admin would take into consideration. (Closing Admin typically ignore, or put less weight into, arguments that don't adhere to policy. What you're saying isn't backed by policy, but by your own personal belief on how you'd like to improve things.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're making a mistake here -- your argument regarding an admin agreeing with me or not suggests that you think I am trying to win a contest, which I am not. To answer your far more sensible question of where one is to draw the line, one might begin by actually reading the reviews being offered in order to address the grave conceptual error that exists in WP:GNG. This error, you see, is the following: when you strip the guideline to its essentials, what it boils down to is "if a lot of people are talking about X, then X must be worth talking about". Which sounds reasonable, but completely misses the point that those same people might be saying that X really isn't worth talking about. And that occurs often with consumer products (video games, but also books, movies, cars and so on), because they are reviewed exactly for the purpose of telling people whether or not they are worthwhile. But GNG ignores that and opts simply for counting the number of people talking about X. So if you have, say, a video game and 15 reviewers (let's call them domain experts for the occasion) saying that it is a mediocre game and not very noteworthy at all, then GNG turns around and says "15 people are talking about it, so it must be notable" et voila, the thing becomes notable for not being notable. So how do you compensate for that? Well, as I say, you could start by actually taking into account what reviewers are saying rather than just the fact that they are saying something. And no, that is not as black-and-white as GNG often makes things. But then, there is no good reason that it should be so black-and-white. -- BenTels (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're free to do as you chose, but don't expect any closing Admin fo act in favor of your own personal subjective definition of notability. (Where does one draw the line in interpreting notability according to "originality" like that? Would New Super Mario Bros. 2 be too much like New Super Mario Bros. so it's not worth it's own article? Or every yearly iteration of games like Call of Duty?) Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I'm well aware of the fact that there is a conceptual fault in the Wikipedia assumption of notability as recorded in WP:GNG that gives consumer products a free pass. Doesn't mean I have to agree that a totally non-notable thirteen-to-a-dozen game is notable simply because a lot of reviewers have taken the trouble to say that it is a non-notable thirteen-to-a-dozen game. And therefore I will not. -- BenTels (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There's strong consensus at WP:VG that detailed reviews count towards notability, and there's consensus than these sources are reliable at WP:VG/RS. It may be a bland, cookie-cutter product, but it's still getting sufficient coverage. Being original isn't a criteria for meeting the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 13:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per Someoneanother. Having multiple reviews qualifies it as notable for a videogame. In WP:SOFT it says
The software is the subject of multiple printed third party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers.
qualifies a software to be notable. Jucchan (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per Someone Another's sources. (It seems there's a recent wave of people nominating these terrible licensed games for deletion. They may be awful, but they still pass the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 13:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This game received a surprising amount of press as Someone another has shown. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per Someoneanother, the game has received press by sources, which are reliable by WP:VG/S. ZappaOMati 23:04, 19 January 2013 (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.