Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clicking Bad

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 no consensus. Additionally, I recommend continuing to discuss the possibility of merging out. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking Bad[edit]

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

This article was previosly A7 speedied by User:Antiqueight, but that was contested by User:Alza08 after numerous users objected on the talk page; however, only one of those objections (that by User:Rebochan) really carries any water, and given the extraordinarily high volume of posts in a short amount of time, I'd be quite surprised if there were no sockpuppetry or collaboration involved here. (Please note that I am not accusing any particular user or IP; there's no real way of knowing which comments were good-faith, and which were not.) Personally, I think an A7 would still be quite valid, but I accept that that's not really an option anymore.

To me, this is a classic example of WP:NOTINHERITED: Cookie Clicker is somewhat notable; Breaking Bad is extremely notable; but that doesn't mean that a game drawing inspiration from the two of them is. Sure, it's gotten some coverage, but if you look at that coverage, it's pretty much all "hey, look at this Cookie Clicker spin-off"—one-off blog-posts that don't really delve into any deeper discussion. As such, I would argue that this fails the "significant coverage" requirement of the general notability guideline. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 08:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment I have the same thought but need to give the benefit of doubt. Hence I put the notability tag. SYSS Mouse (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment I agree with possibly merging the article (Spam Can's suggestion). But the number of articles seems to suggest the game has *significant coverage* as defined in the notability guidelines. The articles are certainly more than just a passing suggestion.69.144.201.50 (talk) 06:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that this page should be merged with Cookie Clicker rather than completely destroyed - It's possibly the most popular and most talked about Cookie Clicker clone out there, and has been shown off as such on various blogs. A quick search for Cookie Clicker on Google News brings up several. SpAM CAN (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how much can be merged though. SYSS Mouse (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are several good RSes here and they demonstrate that the topic meets WP:GNG. I would disagree that this is a case of WP:NOTINHERITED. That essay covers a particular kind of Wikipedian editorial fallacy. Basically we as editors aren't allowed to declare a topic notable simply due to its relation to notable "parents". It says nothing at all about we editors second-guessing the logic behind the authors of reliable sources. If the reliable sources cover a topic substantially as these articles seem to then we have to accept it at face value. To opine on fallacies of the RS authors would be to engage in Original Research. But with that said, let's look at the article. The "Cultural References" section basically amounts to WP:TRIVIA and should probably be axed. This leaves us with a 2-paragraph Gameplay section. Without development and reception sections this is basically doomed to remain a stub for eternity. I'd !vote against deletion because this topic meets GNG, but if further sources cannot be located sufficient to create development and reception sections then we have to consider merging the article. In this case a merge with Cookie Clicker seems like a logical solution. Failing that, we should merge with Breaking Bad. -Thibbs (talk) 01:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least for now (a close as "no consensus" will do as far as I am concerned). Given the presence of sources (despite their limitations), the lack of clear consensus here and WP:DEADLINE (point 2, Don't rush to delete articles), I would say, give this a few months and lets review it again then.. --Reinoutr (talk) 15:06, 20 November 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.