Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicken Invaders

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 no consensus. W.marsh 17:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chicken Invaders

Chicken Invaders (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

No independent references per Wikipedia:Notability (software) and no signs that the developer is notable. References provided are all from the developers site. Prod removed today with the comment "this is a notable game; probably the best of its type. many Google hits" without providing any references for notability. Looking at the google hits, it's page after page of download sites without any quality information. Marasmusine 21:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Marasmusine 21:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete (see further down) I've found one review for one of the trilogy on Gamespot [1], though nothing else is forthcoming. There are certainly plenty of google hits [2] (and that's with both 'download' and 'wikipedia' disqualified), but I'm not seeing multiple non-trivial sources, just a lot of download sites. One thing - the first game of the trilogy is free for download on the dev's website, which of course results in a lot of scatter-shot advertising on google - why wouldn't every linkfarm link to 'PHREE GAMES!!'. If someone can come up with another good secondary source I'll reconsider. QuagmireDog 23:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Indeed, this is a notable game and the best of its type. This is a well written article that now has sources. It now meets WP:V and other Wikipedia policies and should be kept. Bridgeplayer 03:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I'm satisfied that this passes WP:WEB now, with respect the article isn't well designed and will need substantial rewriting and collapsing into prose. That's for the future though. Please don't use the V-wotsit review though, all text is "The software publisher's description" and the opinions of a few users who click a button is neither reviewing or reliable info. Its presence detracts-from rather than improves the article. Good work though, changing my position accordingly. QuagmireDog 03:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, article now passes WP:WEB as far as I can see, hopefully the article will develop and continue to gain sources in the future. QuagmireDog 03:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. Does a review by the editors of CNET etsablish notability? I don't think it does but may be wrong. The other sources are either blog/wiki type mentions or the company's own website. - Shaundakulbara 05:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - This is a shareware game and needs to be assessed in that context. WP:V is met by sources that say the game exists and is popular. The fact that there is a wide range of reviews goes towards notability. Bridgeplayer 17:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Of the newly provided references, only the Gamespot link provides anything resembling an unbiased, professional review. The others I have removed because they were of the 'Here's the game blurb, now download it!' variety. Marasmusine 08:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I know that you are desperate to get this article deleted but removing content only harms your case. The fact that there is a download link is normal with freeware/shareware game reviews and does not distract from them. I have reverted the deletions and added a further review not associated with a download link. Bridgeplayer 17:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry if I gave the impression I had a cause, or was desperate. I was just trying to cull what I considered poor quality external links as established by WP:EL and WP:SOFTWARE. Marasmusine 18:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil Bridgeplayer, removing links which are unsuitable damages nothing, their presence damaged both the article and attempts to argue for its being kept. I have already gone back and removed the VNUNet and Softpedia links, they are blatantly unsuitable and fail WP:EL. I'll look into the others in more detail, my keep vote is based on CNET and Gamespot, not these others which may all fail WP:EL. I'll also be checking CNET in detail. QuagmireDog 19:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Further, WP:RS is important here. QuagmireDog 19:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, you are quite right, comment withdrawn. However, I still think he was too vigorous with the rubber:-) Taken together, the remaining references are probably as good as you get for any Freeware package and I think meet WP:WEB. Bridgeplayer 05:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Apologies for the second change of mind, after examining the CNet/Download.com site and actual reviews I don't accept that it is a reliable source, a couple of paragraphs and a rating out of 5 from an unnamed employee of a download site just doesn't cut it. Download.com is somewhere to download software, not obtain reliable reviews. GameSpot remains a good source, but others added to the article do not hold water. QuagmireDog 19:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I might change to weak keep with addition of more reliable sources. Otherwise, it's very hard to gauge whether or not this has brod enough exposure to warrant an article. Article also needs cleanup, but that's a different matter. --Alan Au 23:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It exists, it's a popular online game as far as I'm aware...why not? Porterjoh 17:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - This looks a useful article that has been sourced enough to meet WP:V. I see no particular reason to delete. BlueValour 21:13, 30 January 2007 (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.