Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puzzle Puppers

Add links
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. No one except nominator supports deletion. Shutting this down also to prevent more personal discussion. Drmies (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzle Puppers[edit]

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

Puzzle Puppers (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)

Non-notable. There are millions of such games, and nothing indicates that this one is of any particular interest or importance. It has attracted a couple of routine reviews. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The subject does not meet WP:GNG by any stretch of the imagination. One is a review in a gaming magazine, the other 2 references are promotional. No in-depth coverage in a reliable source. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 11:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are not promotion, those are reviews in independent reliable sources. Polygon (website), Destructoid, and Nintendo Life are used as references in thousands of gaming articles. Just click on their links and select "What links here" and then click to list things by 500 at a time, and keep clicking next page and count. These have long been established as reliable sources. Dream Focus 17:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't tell if this is a failure of WP:BEFORE or hyperbole. Sergecross73 msg me 12:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sergecross73, are you referring to my comment above? I ask this as a question for no other reason than to improve my skills as an editor. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm talking to you. There are six third party sources that dedicate entire articles to the subject. I know people all have their own interpretations and standards for meeting the GNG, but to say that this situation doesn't meet the GNG "by any stretch of the imagination" is ludicrous. That is not a good assessment of the situation here. Sergecross73 msg me 22:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Every gaming article on Wikipedia has coverage in media that reviews games. It clearly passes the general notability guidelines. Significant coverage was given, not just brief mentions of it, these detailed reviews. Dream Focus 16:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focus: You specifically stated in your user space that its significant coverage was not the reason you created an article on it, but that your kid niece is a fan. My brother when he was younger was a big fan of the Kellogg's mascot character CD-ROM game Mission Nutrition that came free in certain cereal boxes, in which the player could play as Tony, Snap, Crackle, Pop or Coco (with Smacks as a secret unlockable character), and honestly the sources discussing that are probably far more numerous and in-depth, but you don't see me writing an article on it and finding one or two game reviews to prop said article up on. And no, I did not just make that game up. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I found multiple reliable sources giving it significant coverage, so made an article for it. I would not have created it if I didn't think it met the notability requirements. Dream Focus 21:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I found multiple reliable sources giving it significant coverage is what you said about Mottainai Grandma, and you weren't lying then -- the sources you found were so detailed that they told you the short picture book was a "bestselling novel", a factoid you added to the article and then tried to deny you had. Please stop trying to rewrite history in your userspace, by the way. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with you? A minor mistake, I already explained, using the word "novel" when I meant book, and I didn't deny anything, I just remembered I had changed it to something else, but the edit history was blocked so I couldn't tell that after I changed it to something, someone else changed it to something else which was the current version. And I did not try to rewrite history in my userspace. Also why are you bringing that up here? Comment on the sources I found and this article, not something unrelated. Dream Focus 22:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The diff is right there (actually it's behind the other diff): you denied, then argued your denial back and forth with me and another editor for hours before the revdelling admin stepped in and pointed out that you were wrong and I was right. And when trying to find the diff of your claiming you created an article on a game a relative of yours enjoyed based on similar cursory research, I noticed you had more recently posted a permanent piece of revisionism denying the plagiarism that resulted in the revdel -- do I need to ask Tony to tell you you are wrong again and that you had several full sentences almost identical to the source? I know I already told him I'd avoid bringing up the plagiarism unless it's relevant, but in this case it is because you are actively denying it (and attacking me) in your userspace. As for why I'm bringing it up here -- well, it's relevant because your talking about the creation of this article (Puzzle Puppers) in your userspace was apparently not noticed by the nom, and on top of that I don't really have anywhere else to politely ask you to remove it lest I MFD it; you've banned me from your talk page, and when I ping you on my talk page you ignore it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did not argue for hours. I didn't post that much at all. It was an honest mistake about something no one but you seems to care about. And I never had any plagiarism, I just didn't paraphrase things well enough, some minor changes made. I ignore anything you say on your user page, since you are out of your mind, always playing the victim and convinced everyone is out to get you. Now then, are you going to comment on the reliable sources in the article and significant coverage they provide or just whine about unrelated nonsense? Dream Focus 00:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen users get indefinitely blocked for less overt personal attacks than you are out of your mind. You should retract it (along with the rest of the above post) before this AFD is closed, or there will definitely be consequences. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to happen. You refuse to stop following me around and saying the same lies every chance you get, distorting everything, then trying to play the victim. Now kindly focus on the subject at hand and stop ranting off like usual. The wikiproject for video games says those are reliable sources, and they are giving significant coverage, so this article clearly passes notability requirements. Dream Focus 12:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 16:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Dream Focus 19:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per OP: trivial, arbitrarily selected one of millions of such games, and the fact the article's creator admitted this arbitrary selection here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been adequately improved to at least make a reasonable claim to notability, and even if it hadn't this AFD wouldn't be going anywhere, and I'd have put up with far too much personal abuse for the above !vote for it to be worth digging my heels in. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, this edit summary is inaccurate to what I've written here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't admit to anything, I stated I became aware of the game because my niece enjoyed it. I then looked up information, found reviews for it, and created an article. Millions of games don't get significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, as this one has, otherwise they'd have articles as well. Dream Focus 21:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

STOP, STOP, STOP! @Dream Focus and Hijiri88: this is not the forum to argue about your differences of opinion over past matters. This is the forum discuss whether Puzzle Puppers should be kept or deleted and notability is the nominated issue to be discussed. Hijiri 88 please limit your to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Dream Focus may have made errors in the past, but that does not make their argument invalid on this occasion. Dream Focus please limit your responses to Wikipedia policy and guidelines and do not continue the irrelevant argument. If you both want to continue this take it to the appropriate forum; see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and limit your arguments to whether or not Puzzle Puppers is notable! 8==8 Boneso (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Boneso: What do you mean by please limit your to Wikipedia policy and guidelines? Pointing out that the article creator has admitted on-wiki to their having created the article based on an apparently cursory source check because their niece likes the game is directly relevant to the notability of the topic since his niece could like all sorts of non-notable garbage that might have received superficial review in online gaming publications, like the Mission Nutrition example (which currently exists on-wiki only as a redirect to a completely unrelated topic). The rest was in direct response to DF's honing in on something I said on my user talk page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My source checking was thorough. The video game wikiproject has a list of what are considered reliable sources. And these reliable sources are in the article, and give significant coverage. It clearly passes notability. Thousands of articles use these same sources, as I have mentioned before. And your ridiculous Mission Nutrition example makes no sense at all, so bringing it up a second time serves no purpose. It has nothing at all to do with this. Dream Focus 01:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to get drawn into your argument. I will disengage. Hopefully you can both focus on content and resolve your differences.8==8 Boneso (talk) 03:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - regardless of why the article was made, and whatever beef there is between these two feuding editors, there is enough third party coverage to meet the WP:GNG here. The following sources are entire articles dedicated to the subject, all found usable/reliable per consensus at WP:VG/S.
  1. https://www.polygon.com/2017/7/1/15906276/puzzle-puppers
  2. http://www.shacknews.com/article/103177/puzzle-puppers-slinking-onto-nintendo-switch
  3. https://www.destructoid.com/review-puzzle-puppers-491643.phtml (Written by the website's "Features Editor" staff.)
  4. http://comicbook.com/gaming/2018/02/04/nintendo-switch-doggos-puppers-puzzle-game/
  5. http://www.nintendolife.com/reviews/switch-eshop/puzzle_puppers
  6. http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/review/46488/puzzle-puppers-switch-review
Yes, the game looks like cheap bargain bin stuff, but that is not a criteria for whether or not it's notable in the Wikipedia sense. Sergecross73 msg me 12:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there have been enough reviews added/mentioned. StrayBolt (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focus: Can you add the missing reviews that @Sergecross73: mentioned above? StrayBolt (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through the two not in there and not knowing what I could say. [1] and [2] don't really give any information not already referenced to the Polygon article, and they don't really give an actual review when talking about it. Dream Focus 23:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They can easily be implemented. I'll take care of it if you can't. Sergecross73 msg me 01:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep THe independent reviews included are enough to prove notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've expanded the article with the new sources found. Sergecross73 msg me 13:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it has reliable source. Mayamaya7 Poke! 05:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Puzzle_Puppers&oldid=846169111"