Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Spider's Sunny Patch Friends: Harvest Time Hop and Fly

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. – Joe (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Spider's Sunny Patch Friends: Harvest Time Hop and Fly

edit
Miss Spider's Sunny Patch Friends: Harvest Time Hop and Fly (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)

A nothingburger. Found no sources. Coin945 (talk) 12:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 12:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 12:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 12:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The "found no sources" claim is not true as there are sources out there for this particular game as pointed out by Sergecross73. The articles/reviews from the Metacritic source are high quality and are suitable for expanding this article in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 06:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:FAILN. On the Metacritic source the Detroit Free Press link returns an oops! 404 error, and the Deeko review also returns a 404 error. Gamefeed redirects to an engadget search site, leaving only IGN. There is just not enough out there to pass GNG. It is easy to just list sites (all originating from one source) without checking them out. The article is sourced with an "External link" which is against policies and guidelines, and there is just not enough sourcing for notability on a stubby stub let alone anything else. Otr500 (talk) 08:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just want to echo the above comments. The fact that some of the sites are dead does not negate them as credible sources; one could also try to find the references through a website archive. Aoba47 (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coments: I checked and it is not April 1st. Maybe it is a test? I was confused that I am debating policies and guidelines with two editors with a total edit count of over 46,000, and one is an admin. There are tags on the article for "no sources" and "notability" since July 2015 or almost 2 1/2 years. In my short time here I have NEVER read broad community consensus that we should keep an article indefinitly because there "might be sources out there somewhere in the universe", and if someone refbombs dead links we are suppose to either just keep digging, or let the article languish. I mean, crap, notability is not important right?
There is only one policy that can almost over-ride policy, which would be that we can ignore such silly things as policies and guidelines if it improves Wikipedia. Wait! What constitutes "improvements" can be subjective and there is that little thing we call consensus.
There are two "keep" editors ignoring policies and guidelines by what seems to me to be Wikipedia:wikilawyering. Two editors could not find reliable sources and stated thus, so they are branded as liars, and some dead links are pointed to, by these same "keep" editors, that the dead links are still considered reliable because there wasn't enough research done to uncover some correct links.
  • I have a splendid idea! How about one or both of the two editors, that wants to keep the unsourced stubby-stub, do the legwork instead of trying to pawn it off, and properly source the article. If not then two lowly editors, following the above mentioned policiies and guidelines, and a host of others, still find there is not "enough" to denote notability. "I WP:CHALLENGE all the unsourced content", (and it has been since 2015), and 2 1/2 years is far over any thought-up criteria for a continued article. This is really a content issue but **Y-E-S** a dead link can be discounted from proving notability. If a source can't be checked to verify that there is no original research, or that WP:NPOV is being followed, and that the article does not run afoul of what Wikipedia is not, it simply cannot be verified, and so the subject lacks notability for a stand-alone article.
The entire concept of WP:notability:"This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article.", and "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. **WP:NRV :
  • "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.". I did look and find the article lacking. --- Otr500 (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, cool it with the hyperbole and walls of texts. My argument was that multiple third party sources covered the game, and that it meets the GNG. That's valid and none if your ranting above changes that. Sergecross73 msg me 13:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will have to echo Sergecross73's comment above. There are four reliable sources and the above argument for deleting the article is extremely weak and not based on policy. There is not reason to be rude during the discussion, as it in fact takes away from argument and your professionalism. Aoba47 (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am iffy on the reliability of Metacritic. Often the metascore is based on many unreliable reviews and only one or two reliable ones. Anyone and their mother can make their own review site and get added to Metacritic. I add Metascores to articles because it seems to be Wikipedia policy but it certainly is not indicative of whether the game passes GNG unless the amount of reviews is large.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Youre both right. MC is an RS, but not every website they aggregate reviews from is - there's a number of discrepancies between what MC uses and what WP:VG/S deems reliable. But no ones !vote was contingent on all of them being reliable - mine was more based around the fact that multiple very mainstream, not-niche/obscure websites covered it, like IGN and DFP. Sergecross73 msg me 00:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep AfDs are only supposed to delete articles on topics that could not be made into articles, due to failing GNG. This article does have reliable sources (The ones listed above), especially the IGN link. It meets GNG, and thus should be kept. It is not a way to force people to work on an article, nor a way to delete articles because it's been badly sourced. Lee Vilenski(talk) 15:15, 4 January 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Miss_Spider%27s_Sunny_Patch_Friends:_Harvest_Time_Hop_and_Fly&oldid=1070998067"