Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Run Sheldon (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 keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Run Sheldon[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Run Sheldon" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

There is some coverage of the game - see the references in the article - but at the same time, it seems a Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill game I don't think we should have an article about. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There already exists an open Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Run Sheldon, however the nominator did not add the AfD template to the article. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources -- Gamezebo and GameTrailers are two reviews from reliable WP:VG/RS sources. I'd ideally want to see 3+ reviews from our RSes. But this is certainly not a run-of-the-mill game if the entire games industry is concerned, most games don't even get mentioned, let alone get reviews. For other articles included, [1] is definitely not reliable, they charge for posting articles. [2] and [3] look semi-okay, although they don't have an official reliable source status. Other reviews include [4][5][6] etc. although these aren't yet considered RSes, but I believe do supplement GNG. The rest of the hits are press releases or non-reliable sources. Of course, notability of the topic is independent on how the article is written and frankly it's written better than most our game articles, so I don't agree with WP:GAMECRUFT issues. (Posting the comment on this AfD, since it's a later one and properly announced.) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (changed from Delete) for the following reasons:

A good place for this article is the Gaming Wikia. Willkey77 (talk) 14:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is determined by the notability guideline, specifically WP:GNG -- lack or existence of sources covering the subject (your second link says this directly). It can be supplemented by secondary topical notability guidelines (such as what WP:NVG would have been if it had passed). Only then primarily content guidelines like WP:VG/GL are considered. There is a difference between how an article is written and if the topic is notable. (A very poorly written article could exist on a notable topic and a seemingly well-written article could exist on a non-notable topic.) In a deletion discussion you have to address notability, not article content. For example, I have provided multiple sources above that I believe satisfy notability (GNG). For a valid deletion argument, you have to show that these sources are unsuitable for GNG or that there is an otherwise strong argument for deletion. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and I also value the experience you're bringing here. I understood that notability for a game should also reflect 'its importance to the industry'. The GameTrailers review concludes with 'It's not a revolutionary game, but there's more than enough that's fresh and fun (...) to make it a very worthwhile download for any fan of the ever-popular endless-runner'. My feeling is that this is an Endless running game which hardly deserves a page on its own. But I admit here that I have more to learn to make the right judgements. Thanks Willkey77 (talk) 12:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Importance to the industry" does not mean "it has to be important". In fact, GameTrailers saying "It's not a revolutionary game" is a direct description of game's importance on the industry -- in this case, none really. What we need is a description of (non)importance, not proof of importance. Being important would most likely imply being notable, but the vast majority of games are completely unimportant as individual games. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what that line importance to the industry line was intended to to suggest but I highly doubt that the intent was a game has to be revolutionary to be notable. It should be noted that there is nothing in the main notability guideline (WP:N) that even remotely suggests that as a criteria. For those reasons I think this article should be kept.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed from Delete to Weak keep based on the discussion. Willkey77 (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2014 (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) 18:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Just barely enough coverage with some of the sources like Gamezebo, GameTrailers, and 148apps, which are considered reliable per consensus at WikiProject Video Games's Source evaluation page. As HellKnowz is saying, the "importance" clause is more about whether or not its getting coverage by third party reliable sources, not so much its actual impact or originality due to its gameplay. Sergecross73 msg me 13:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it just did not make any sense that being revolutionary would have been considered a notability requirement or why there were not a whole lot more AFD's if that was the case.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, its more meant to differentiate from no-name video games that receive zero coverage/articles about it at all. Like some random fan game put out for free that received 7 downloads on some random website. Or the 207th hit for "Puzzle Game" on the App Store that no one's ever heard of. That sort of thing. This game shows its importance because reliable sources have chosen to write previews/reviews of it. Sergecross73 msg me 02:38, 2 January 2014 (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.