Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crocodile Dentist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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, consensus is that the sources added during the AFD meet the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crocodile Dentist

Crocodile Dentist (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Contested PROD, another non-notable run of the mill children's board game, no non-trivial coverage, no sources. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - Completely non-notable board game [1]. I couldn't locate a single source that covered the game without simply listing it for sale. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Changed to Keep per below. My google news searching (not in the diff above) didn't go beyond a month. That's why I found nothing. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep – To be honest at first, I was going with delete. However, in doing some research, I was able to find some credible – verifiable and in-depth reviews of the game. As shown here. [2]. I believe a decent piece can be done on the game. I have expanded the opening a tad and added reference and cite. I’ll work on the article as the debate is going on and see if we can expand and bump up from stub status. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 02:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: It's easy to verify that this is or was an actual commercially marketed game, but that information doesn't contradict any part of the argument proffered by the editor who marked the article for deletion. The game does not appear ever to have made an appreciable dent on the culture at large, in contradistinction to, say, Scrabble. All information in the article as it currently reads is very trivial, and I don't see how that is likely to change. TheScotch (talk) 07:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Excellent sources found on google news above, I think it satisfies notability.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, non-trivial coverage by notable publications as above. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC).
  • Keep — sources establish and prove notability. EJF (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Even "coverage" doesn't make something notable, as the coverage is for the incident, not the game. The game "is considered a classic" in a dubious passive voice construction. The game, in fact, does not appear to have achieved sales figures or cultural entanglement sufficient to be a notable object. Additionally, this article is not about the game, but about the YouTube video. That is not Wikipedia's business. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It's described as "popular" and "classic" by sources in the Google News Archive. I know from my own experience (FWIW) that this was a commonly-seen game in the 1990s. No, it's not Scrabble, but it's probably good enough for Wikipedia's low notability standards. The fact that most of the article is about the YouTube video is an editing concern. Zagalejo^^^ 16:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - the google news sources assert notability. Needs an informative and a concise intro. Think outside the box 17:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. House of Scandal (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I know notability standards for products are relatively low, but seriously, this isn't Monopoly. There isn't much to say about this that couldn't be covered in a Hasbro subpage, and none of the arguments presented thus far have shown me that Crocodile dentist is notable in the wider scope of culture. The Google News archive presents with maybe one exception all trivial coverage, most are either product listings are brief mentions. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • 'Keep and expand. This article needs a references section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.12.51 (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
There are a number of articles that do not show up in Google News but are listed at Newsbank, such as the one below:
  • "Croc chomps out the fun; Crocodile Dentist game; Test drive". Hamilton Spectator, The (Ontario, Canada) - April 15, 2004
Unfortunately, Newsbank is experiencing problems at the moment, so I can't access that article. But if I really wanted to, I'm sure I could churn out at least a couple of sourced paragraphs about this game. I don't see why it's any less notable than the thousands of video games which have an established place on Wikipedia. Indeed, the game has remained available in stores for years, which is something you can't say of the average title reviewed in EGM. Zagalejo^^^ 06:55, 29 March 2008 (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.