Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Box Critters (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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Box Critters[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

nominating again after the last discussion resulted, inexplicably and against policy as draftify. Non-notable game, mostly just fan cruft sourced to the game itself. It's never received any meaningful coverage and there's no reason to think anything changed in the month since the last AFD. And as a note, I very much oppose draftifying this again as draftspace is not an indefinite holding area for non-notable topics and given the tendentious editing here, it should be deleted and an be reassessed in time if it becomes notable and sources can be provided. VAXIDICAE💉 19:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Lots of people have tried and failed justifying notability. — Smuckola (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, therefore the topic fails WP:GNG. Despite some very vehement arguments in the previous AfD, there is still no guideline-based reason for keeping this article and not even one decent, independent source has been presented. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found a repayable source. This website it is made by the people who made the game and it is not Fancraft. Also you may think the Twitter is underelayble but it is literaly run by the people listed in the credits. IF you look on there every time they tease something it get's added in the game. Just cause they don't have a Verified Tick doesn't make them un reliable. Also my idea about making this a article is maybe people will see it and try to help me fix it. Ik there is problems if there weren't then we wouldn't be talking right now but nothing will change if I can't get more people to help. The only person who tried to help me is Doggyboy (which I am really happy about tnxs Doggyboy) but I wish more people had faith in this and didn't nominate it the second I try to make it a article. I've tried to take off all the fan cruft and I think I did a pretty good job but I want to do better but not much people are helping me besides shutting me down. I've seen articles that are unfinished or stubs yet those aren't nominated while I have gathered research and put a article together only for it to get deleted. It is so sad seeing something I made, that I took time to make only for it to get noiminated 0.00001 seconds after realseing it for everyone to see. It is very sad to see it. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleMAHER1 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As has already been explained to you repeatedly, that, among the others isn't a reliable source much less an independent one. Perhaps you should've taken advice from the dozens of editors who tried to repeatedly help you and not tendentiously move this into mainspace when you couldn't provide a single RS. VAXIDICAE💉 20:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources do not count towards notability. IceWelder [✉] 20:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LittleMAHER1: I know it can be a bit disheartening to see your article nominated for deletion twice, but you need to understand that all the editors who are critiquing the article are doing it from a place of tough love, myself included. I can speak for every single editor here that we all want Wikipedia to grow. But, we do recognize that, sometimes, quality is better than quantity. We also recognize that there are guidelines put in place by the Wikipedia community as a whole after extensive discussions, and that we should not only follow these guidelines ourselves, but also make sure that every user/every page follows them as well, as that is what will ultimately make Wikipedia better. Stubs are a great representation of something that, despite being short, is an article that passes guidelines. I come across stubs all the time, and I always check them using the notability criteria, and nine times out of ten, they’re notable enough to stay on Wikipedia. Box Critters, while bigger than a stub, does not meet the Wikipedia guidelines for notability, as the article is built off of three types of unacceptable sources: social media (while reliable per SOCIALMEDIA, the Twitter account isn’t verified, and therefore is unreliable), fandom-wiki (which is unreliable per USERG as it is a wiki), and the official Box Critters website (which, when used sparingly, is reliable per PRIMARY, but an article shouldn’t be entirely built off of these). I appreciate your patience and understanding throughout this process, and I also appreciate that you will act according to Wikipedia guidelines when the outcome of this draft is decided. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 21:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the same reasons I mentioned last time. I asked for it to be draftified back then but it was unilaterally moved back with no discernible improvements regarding sourcing. Even the various content violations that were removed by myself and another editor were simply restored or changed by a table. It appears that deleting is now the best option. Pinging @BD2412, PascalsCalculatingHamster, and Doggy54321, who participated in the last AfD as well. IceWelder [✉] 20:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The consensus at the first AfD was to draftify the article, but the creator of the page demonstrated that they can’t find any reliable sources backing up the subject. At this point, it would be pointless to draftify it again as the creator would just move it back to mainspace, while also continuing to add fancruft with unreliable sources. I don’t think we need to look into topic bans just yet, but it’s getting really annoying that they are persevering this hard when every single editor who has interacted with them has told them to stop doing this. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 20:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hog Farm: Pinging the admin who closed the first AfD to request an early close as Delete per WP:SNOW. LittleMAHER1 (page creator) has said and demonstrated that they cannot find any reliable sources whatsoever backing this subject up, and I see no reason why this snowball needs to spend a week in hell before it melts when it’s already melting at a fast rate. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 20:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are no sources expect [sic] for its twitter and/or Fandom Wiki, from [1]. This was said on February 9, around two months ago. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 21:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage whatsoever in reliable sources.-- Whpq (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sorry. After reading everything I guess there is nothing I can do to fix it. I really wanted to try and fix it but I guess there is nothing I can fix. You guys gave your points and I have no right to try and justify this especially with my track record. I don't want to get banned and Ik it will hurt seeing my project get deleted forever but at least now I won't be able to annoy you guys again. Also if Box Critter's does get popular and a wiki is made I will be able to help edit it. For now I think I will stick to editing articles and not making them. Maybe when I get more experience on editing I can try again and this time find better articles or make a actually notable article, I guess I am a little clingy and it hurts when people are saying how my article isn't up to standerd but I guess it is just tough love and I need to deal with that. I'm once again sorry about this and please don't topic ban me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleMAHER1 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin or anything but I don't feel any sanction is necessary. You won't be the first editor to create an article on a non-notable subject and you won't be the last. I created many articles on completely non-notable topics back in my early days (when you didn't even need an account to create them) and they were correctly deleted. Wikipedia is often a learning experience not just for its readers but for its editors and page creators too. I hope that you can continue to channel your energy and enthusiasm towards improving the project. Working on existing articles is probably not a bad idea for now. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. Unless you created a bunch of non-notable articles and showed no intention to stop, you wouldn’t get blocked. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 13:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Man. This may be a little unrelated but dang, Wikipedia is a lot more strict with polices then I thought. Before joining all I thought was Wikipedia was just a place full of articles however it could be un reliable because anyone can edit it. But after deciding to try it, the mods make sure that only the best is displaced here but they still take care of little articles as well. And that is something I can respect. LittleMAHER1 (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2021 (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.