Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Literati (game)
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 Delete, because every time some mossy corporate take-over target gives an online English word game a faux-salon Latin name, another WikiFaerie gets snuffed out.. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Literati (game)
Article is unsourced (WP:V) and does not show how the subject is notable (WP:N). Prod placed earlier this month highlighting these concerns was removed without addressing it. Marasmusine (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- DeleteNo refrences(and it is required of all articles to site refrences(see WP:POLICY)). No refs mean that no one even knows if this game exists.Gears Of War 13:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. You can confirm it's existence in a third-party source (eg here), but that's about it. I couldn't find anything else relevant in Books, News, Scholar, etc., and there are only 199 plain Google hits, none of which look suitable. Not notable enough for inclusion. Jakew (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's not the article's fault you don't know how to use a search engine. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] --Pixelface (talk) 06:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Lots of excellent sources; all single-sentence mentions though. Our coverage should reflect that by including one or two sentences in the Yahoo! Games article. There's nothing substantial enough there to satisfy WP:N, though. Marasmusine (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- So you're claiming this game is not notable? You're saying it's a non-notable Scrabble variant? --Pixelface (talk) 10:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Single sentence mentions are trivial. No-one has yet presented a source that "addresses the subject directly in detail," nor has anyone indicated that it may have won "a well-known and independent award." Marasmusine (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Look at the sources. They're not all "single sentence mentions." And I've already indicated it's well known. --Pixelface (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, yes some of them are two sentences. Marasmusine (talk) 11:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Look at the sources. They're not all "single sentence mentions." And I've already indicated it's well known. --Pixelface (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Single sentence mentions are trivial. No-one has yet presented a source that "addresses the subject directly in detail," nor has anyone indicated that it may have won "a well-known and independent award." Marasmusine (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- So you're claiming this game is not notable? You're saying it's a non-notable Scrabble variant? --Pixelface (talk) 10:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Lots of excellent sources; all single-sentence mentions though. Our coverage should reflect that by including one or two sentences in the Yahoo! Games article. There's nothing substantial enough there to satisfy WP:N, though. Marasmusine (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's not the article's fault you don't know how to use a search engine. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] --Pixelface (talk) 06:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, Yahoo! Games is an acceptable source[19]. I find it hard to believe that 5,172[20] people are currently playing a "non notable" game right now. It's one of Yahoo's featured word games[21] and it's the 18th most popular game on Yahoo! Games.[22] --Pixelface (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yahoo Games are not independent of the subject, then. Jakew (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- So? --Pixelface (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- So, Yahoo obviously stands to gain something from hyping the game. See: WP:IS for more information. ZappyGun, his (empty) talk page, and what he has done for Wikipedia. 13:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- You think it was a Yahoo! employee that created the article? Yahoo! doesn't need to "hype" a game released in 1994 and ported to 2 other platforms and written about in dozens of publications and currently being played by thousands and thousands of people this very second. You want independent sources? Look further up the thread. --Pixelface (talk) 10:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- So, Yahoo obviously stands to gain something from hyping the game. See: WP:IS for more information. ZappyGun, his (empty) talk page, and what he has done for Wikipedia. 13:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- So? --Pixelface (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yahoo Games are not independent of the subject, then. Jakew (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless referenced in external sources. Also, couting the amount of players on Yahoo! is not a reliable way to assert notability. It is the same as saying that a website is notable because it has 23.000 pageviews a month. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 14:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Merge into Scrabble, it's information is relevant in the context of computerised versions of Scrabble, but not independently so. User:Krator (t c) 15:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per sources found above. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- The ones that show Yahoo advertising a game they host? Marasmusine (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Which ones are "advertising"? --Pixelface (talk) 04:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Advertising was the wrong word, sorry. I was pointing out that a Yahoo! Games webpage for a game they host is not a good source for WP:N; hardly independent. Marasmusine (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Which ones are "advertising"? --Pixelface (talk) 04:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- The ones that show Yahoo advertising a game they host? Marasmusine (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above. It fails WP:N - simple as that. Una LagunaTalk 20:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Yahoo! Games seems the obvious route. I would say it's one of the better-known outside the site, but may not be as popular with the rise of Scrabulous. --Dhartung | Talk 21:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Merge with Scrabble, this is a good instance of a variant, but not notable outside its tie to scrabble. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Merge into Yahoo! Games. No non-trivial coverage by reliable verifiable secondary sources. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Merge to Yahoo! Games, not notable on its own but worth a redirect and some info. JuJube (talk) 05:23, 27 May 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.
