Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where's an Egg?

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 No consensus--JForget 23:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where's an Egg?

Totally non-notable video game made by the chapman brothers at homestar runner. Great site, but does a video game they made up in one of their emails deserve its own article? No. Judgesurreal777 21:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

  • keep. "nonnotable" is nominator's personal opinion. References that discuss the game exist. The game is notable for at least three criteria:
    • created by notable developer
    • nontrivial discussion of the game exists
    • nontrivial caterory for games: parody/computer humor
    • 2,290 google hits
The nominator writes themselves "great site", and it is confirmed by reliable sources. `'Míkka 22:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I am confused by the statement: "made up in one of their emails". What does this mean? I've seen reports that someone actuall played the game. Or this is part of the joke as well? `'Míkka 22:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Two sources of brief discussion, that's really about it. Mikka, I hate to say it, but the only thing I can even hedge on is that there is any discussion of the game - and the two first sources appear to be nothing more than brief and trivial discussion. Other than that, yeah, it was created by the Homestar Runner people, and it's in a category - but those are not at all criteria for notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep While not great, his is enough of a coverage to make it notable. i said 00:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Borderline keep, for reasons given above. 86.56.23.88 12:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • That one minor reference should be used to bolster the main Homestarrunner article which needs more references; one reference does not make notability or an individual article. Judgesurreal777 20:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • the " main Homestarrunner article" is already large. Wikipedia is not paper, so the text in qestion is valid content for Homestarrunner. And it is in wikipedia custom it is normal to spin off parts of big articles into separate pages. It is not a standalone "individual article", printed separately in a magazine. It is a part of a series of encyclopedia articles about HS-runner. `'Míkka 23:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
That would be a concern, except that that article can be trimmed, and one more reference, which is about the real size of this article, could be fit into the main article pretty easily. Judgesurreal777 00:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
"can be trimmed": wikipedia is not paper. Why would you want to trim? Why would one squeeze "four in one"? IMO bloating main articles with detail is bad idea. `'Míkka 16:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - as much as I love Homestar, this doesn't have sufficient reliable sources. -- Whpq 16:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, a verifiable, reasonably standalone topic. Since it is a product of the notable homestar runner folk, I see no valid reason for exclusion of this information. Mukadderat 19:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Most H*R pages were just merged. --(trogga) 00:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems fine to me. - Lex 15:04, 24 September 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.