Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nightmare Before Christmas: Oogie's Revenge

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. postdlf (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Nightmare Before Christmas: Oogie's Revenge

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

While I'm sure the game is fun this seems purely promotional as per WP:SPIP. I did a quick search of google to see if any newspapers have ran anything on this game and I did not see any. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep of this and The Nightmare Before Christmas: The Pumpkin King - WP:BEFORE applies here. Several excellent references in the reliable sources search. AfD is not cleanup. --Teancum (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep For video games, a good check is to go to the Metacritic/MobyGames entry and see what is listed for rankings. For the mobygames entry, it lists reviews in GameZone, TeamXbox, JeuxVideo, Yahoo! Games, GameSpot, IGN, GameSpy, Game Informer, Eurogamer, and 1UP. Metacritic shows 34 reviews including Play Magazine, Siliconera, PSM Magazine, Famitsu magazine, Official US PlayStation Magazine, GamersHell, GamingNexus, PALGN, G4TV, Sydney Morning Herald, and Computer and Video Games. This article clearly meets the GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to note that WP:SPIP probably doesn't apply here. I highly doubt the editors of the article were intentionally adding promotional material to generate sales for the game. Their addition of minutia is more likely the will of fandom (WP:FANCRUFT). --Odie5533 (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So any videogame is an automatic keep? I only ask because it is likely that most games will recieve routine coverage. I don't see anything notable about this one other than Capcom made it. But was it a hit or a cult classic? Also just saying WP:BEFORE and not elaborating is not helpful. Especially since I actually went to Google and nothing came up except for video game websites. I also don't believe PSM has a record for fact checking and accuracy. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviews constitute critical commentary, not routine coverage. Routine coverage would be a press release, or a churned press release. For me, if a game receives a few (3+) full page reviews in any medium, it is almost always sufficient to meet the WP:GNG. I'd argue against it, but I've seen games pass AfD with far, far less than this. Sometimes only a few few-sentence reviews buys a video game a keep. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. The bar seems amazingly low for videogames. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In theory it's supposed to be a Wikipedia-wide threshold. WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources". "Multiple" could be as few as 2. And WP:N is only a guideline. The true minimum threshold is set by WP:V, believe it or not. But you certainly won't see me arguing to ignore WP:N. It's basically a de facto policy and rightly so in my view. -Thibbs (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Films, TV episodes, albums and singles all have a similar minimal requirements (within the GNG), so its nothing special for video games. Note this doesn't extent to all VG's, as many smaller titles go unnoticed. Further, a possible option in the future if there's no development information and just some reception is to create a "List of The Nigthmare Before Christmas video games" to summarize them all. But that's not a matter at AFD to worry about. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — With the plethora of reviews of the game in reliable outlets, including Times Online, Eurogamer, IGN, 1UP, Game Informer, GameSpy, Famitsu, Play Magazine, and others, it appears to satisfy the general criteria for notability (GNG). Mephistophelian (contact) 06:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - multiple reliable sources can be found. I've added one as well as removed the WP:FANCRUFT. Satellizer ^{talk contribs} 09:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:GNG with multiple WP:VG/RS. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:07, 2 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) 01:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2013( (UTC)

Keep per all the coverage presented above. (It seems the nominator just isn't familiar with what is considered a reliable source for video games. For what it's worth, it may seem like the bar is set low, but it really isn't - the industry is currently going through some changes that is re-emphasizing little projects and small dev teams, and it is keeping out a lot of these little non-notable iOS and web browser type games.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:35, 4 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.