Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MouseHunt

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MouseHunt

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

Does all Facebook games derserve an article? This game is small, insignificant, and does not meet the general Notability guidelines. --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 06:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is [1]. Fails WP:WEB. Joe Chill (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick search turned up two pieces of television coverage. [2] [3] Methinks it's a tad bigger than you think. --Sonic Mew (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Admins, be very careful of this page because they maybe an influx of editors/ips that will oppose the deletion. I know that the gamers may offer incentative (like in game currency) to sway the votes of the community. This has happened in game numerous times to sway the votes of other communities. See: http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?xid=mousehunt_contests_2&app_id=10337532241&c_url=http%253A%252F%252Fapps.facebook.com%252Fmousehunt%252Fboards.php&r_url=http%253A%252F%252Fapps.facebook.com%252Fmousehunt%252Fboards.php&sig=ddc111322d657e9dbf13dde747f6b19b&topic=5942, which says

This is a pretty simple contest. I am trying to win a grant for a dog rescue and need votes for my dog, Oso. Read all about it here:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?xid=mousehunt_tavern&app_id=10337532241&c_url=http%253A%252F%252Fapps.facebook.com%252Fmousehunt%252Fboards.php&r_url=http%253A%252F%252Fapps.facebook.com%252Fmousehunt%252Fboards.php&sig=0e6fc603c9144e75c5c833fb6fb86638&topic=72001&post=1352948#post1352948
Anyway, to drum up more support for the voting, I am starting a contest. So for every 25 votes Oso receives, I will give away 25K in gold. All you have to do is vote, and say you voted on this thread. That's it.
How will I determine a winner? Well, if it is, say, 2 p.m. and he has 50 votes (he already has over 25), the person closest to posting a "I voted" comment will win the 25,000 gold. Simple? Ready? OK, vote here: http://mvp.bissell.com/mvp_PetDetail.aspx?id=8589956282
Thanks for playing and voting!

--Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 06:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a template for pointing out that AFD debates aren't a straw poll? If you really think it would be an issue, sticking it at the top of the page would be more beneficial than throwing attacks at the community. --Sonic Mew (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 14:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources located by Sonic Mew. LotLE×talk 20:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the content about the subject and redirect MouseHunt to MouseHunt (film).--^Trust_Me^THROW! 03:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trust Me THROW's idea seems logical except I say the other way round. ie: We replace the content of MouseHunt with the content on MouseHunt (film) and then redirect MouseHunt (film) to MouseHunt.--Prodigy96 (talk) 07:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see the independent coverage here. Pcap ping 19:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Stricken two blocked socks. Cirt (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of significant coverage from reliable third parties. JBsupreme (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do all high-voltage power line towers deserve an article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbe_crossing_1 . The difference between the article I have provided and the article being lumped together for deletion is that the latter is both more well-known and with a few edits to preserve neutrality, will be as significant as the former.198.166.35.81 (talk) 01:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - the references found by Joe Chill and Sonic Mew seem (just about) enough to establish notability. Robofish (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Robofish on those three references. Also, when I use Google news for "MouseHunt" AND "facebook" I get a number of promising results. [4] The Washing Post has an article on it about this and other games that won something, giving it enough coverage in the article, describing what it is. [5] Dream Focus 13:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - more than enough significant independent coverage to demonstrate notability. The Star article is dedicated to this one game which it covers in considerable detail, and the Washington Post article also includes significant coverage, in addition to the two TV items.
I would, however, question the author's decision to move the article about the 1997 film MouseHunt to MouseHunt (film) in order to make way for this article. I can see why it makes sense, since the more recent subject may be the one for which more readers search, and it avoids difficult decisions as to what to call the new article (e.g. MouseHunt (game) or MouseHunt (Facebook application) etc), but is the Facebook game more notable than the film, and does it matter whether it is or not? I'm probably being completely irrational here, but moving older articles like this strikes me as a bit like pushing into a queue in front of those who have been there longer. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2010 (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.