Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transformice (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 . Marasmusine (talk) 07:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transformice

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

The article has been previously deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transformice.

Apparently the new creator has been significantly re-written the content, however the article still boasts an alarming lack of significant coverage in third party reliable sources. Active Banana (^bananaphone 14:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Funny how the games designers are supposed to be French, but there is no entry in the French Wikipedia. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with deleting the article? ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 17:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, the French Wikipedia may not consider it notable, which can be considered (although it is clearly not a definitive answer as our policies are a little different). Although if you want to enjoy some beans feel free to create the French article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather not because not only do I not know French but I wouldn't want to do a copy-paste job onto the French Wikipedia either. I'd rather a French editor make a grassroots sort of movement and make the article on their own. But just because the game does not have an article in a certain language does not make it less notable. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 12:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My 'vote' is rather obvious, though the AfD process does not work on a tally of votes. Well, the article had a good month of time before the inevitable happened. After looking up the article and finding the original AfD I decided to be bold and try to get it restored. I was informed it may be listed again for AfD by the Admin who originally WP:SALTed the article. I made my best attempt to write it as cleanly and as clearly as possible, keep WP:Policies in mind, show notability and provided several reliable sources, such as Alexa rankings, Kotaku and Kongregate. The game has 200,000 likes on Facebook so I felt that at least 200,000 people aware of the game counted as notability. I felt all these things combined would allow the article a second run, but that falls on consensus now. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 17:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the actual notability requirements for stand alone articles? Active Banana (^bananaphone 17:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether I did or didn't it a moot point. Consider this: If the websites that I included in the article have articles of their own on Wikipedia and therefore pass the standard of notability, why is it that their inclusion does not warrant notability? ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 23:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A subject is considered notable if it is the subject of multiple reliable sources which are non-trivial. If a game website is considered notable on WP that's separate thing to it being considered reliable, just because we have an article on it it doesn't mean that it's a usable source. For all that there are sources which are both reliable and non-trivial (see below) in this case. Someone another 00:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 17:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 17:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)—☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 17:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 17:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Small piece on Kotaku, significant piece on PC Gamer (newstand magazine), significant piece on JayIsGames (well established casual/indie games site, small piece on indiegames.com (part of the Gamasutra network, content is republished on Gamasutra every week, piece on Bit.Tech, piece on Rock Paper Shotgun by Kieron Gillen. There's more than enough sources to cover notability, why is this up for deletion? Someone another 17:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for digging those up. I added the first few in but didn't want to flood the article with new sources since I wasn't sure where to put them all. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 00:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has indeed been rewritten, but its content is broadly similar to that of the earlier version, and it has not significantly addressed the reasons for deletion given in the first AfD. It does not establish notability. In my opinion it qualifies for speedy deletion as a recreation of an article deleted at AfD (CSD G4), and indeed I deleted it for that reason. However, it turns out that another administrator had indicated to the author that the article was suitable for recreation, so I decided to give it the benefit of the doubt and undeleted it. The sources given above by "Someone another" are not reliable sources, being blogs etc. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PC Gamer is a newstand magazine which has been around for 17 years, Kieron Gillen is a professional video game journalist, Indiegames.com is reprinted on Gamasutra which is itself a reliable source. Reliable sources don't suddenly become garbage because the website they're on uses the blog format. Someone another 20:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the criteria is coverage of" the subject directly in detail, .... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention.". While the PCgamer article is mort than trivial mention, i fail to see any actual encyclopedic content that could be sourced from there into the article. the current usage is certianly not substantial. the PCgamer article alludes to the fact that from a game theory perspective the game is pretty brilliantly designed to test cooperation and competitive rewards, but I doubt the author has credentials in either psycology or math to be a good source for that analysis. Active Banana (^bananaphone 16:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a game. I'd say a description of the game and a summary of reviews is encyclopedic content and the reliable sources provide enough information to do that. Hobit (talk) 02:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources seem to be plenty and certainly enough are reliable (per Someone Another). Meets WP:N (which is a bit surprising for a free browser game, but there you are). Hobit (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has received non-trivial coverage on sites that certainly appear to be reliable sources for game coverage. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above, which certainly provide with significant coverage, and I fail to see how Kotaku or PC Gamer can be considered either unreliable or not qualified on the matter - frankie (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are reliable, meets WP:N, and it's also notable enough to have a page on the French and Russian Wikipedia. SalfEnergy (talk) 09:18, 2 June 2011 (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.