Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Block Ops

Add links
Source: 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.  Sandstein  08:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Block Ops

Block Ops (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable video game. While there's a few references, there's nowhere near as much as the standard article for a video game is expected to have and are from smaller insignificant websites. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 17:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A quick Google search brings up several good review sources – see here and here. Additionally, there are reviews for the game's sequel, Blocks Ops II, e.g. here. These are independent, published articles, and the subjective 'insignificance' of publishers is irrelevant to reliability. The game clearly passes
    WP:NVG. -- Pingumeister(talk) 10:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Let's go through each point of the
notability guidelines
, shall we?
  • "Significant coverage": The guidelines define it as "no original research is needed...[and] more than a trivial mention". Considering all four sources have Block Ops right in the title, it's safe to say that it's more than just a trivial mention.
  • "Reliable":
    WP:VG/RS
    is the whitelist for sources relating to video games, since it's easy to make a review sound official. GameSpot is a sometimes-reliable source due to a mix of fan- and officially-created content, but since it's just used for the release date, we're okay. SlideToPlay is okay, as is 148apps. Nvision isn't listed either way, but it seems to me that it's a good source (but again, it's easy to make it look reliable without actually being reliable, so take that last one as you will).
  • "Sources": It needs secondary and multiple sources, both of which are met here.
  • "Independent of the subject": All the refs appear to be independent, and two of them are whitelisted, so we know they're good.
  • "Presumed": This is basically whether or not it deserves an article. I think there's enough here to allow it to have its own article, and far as I can tell, there's no suitable merge target, although this last point is somewhat subjective. but if we don't keep it, List of video games notable for negative reception might be a good merge target, although I'm not sure how the breakdown presented by Lewis Hulbert would stand alongside the IGN and MetaCritic ratings there.
The reviews may be small time, but they're still suitable for proving notability. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 19:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Small time reviews don't establish notability, they establish small time products. Szzuk (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Pingumeister and Supernerd11 have made me consider the notability, but let's have a look at what sources we're using here:
  • GameSpot - Automatically generated page using information from its entry on iTunes. This proves no notability, any iOS game will have a page like this.
  • Slide to Play - This one is fine.
  • 148Apps - While
    WP:VG
    says this one is fine, I am strongly opposed to using this as a source when they have a disclaimer message like this: "Review disclosure: note that the product reviewed on this page may have been provided to us by the developer for the purposes of this review. Note that if the developer provides the product or not, this does not impact the review or score." So what, they'll review anything if they're provided with a copy of the game? I don't see how this source is at all reliable if they do stuff like this.
  • Nvision - I've never heard of this one, but Supernerd11's comment seems to sum it up.
  • Touch Arcade - This just seems to be a compilation of information taken from the Google Play entry. What notability does this prove?
Overall, we have two sources that are deemed reliable (although I personally think there should only be one) along with no attention from mainstream news sources, I don't understand how this can be notable.

--Lewis Hulbert (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The slidetoplay review essentially says "This game is crap". How notable are small time crap smartphone games? Szzuk (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Being crap" isn't a valid reason for deletion, and there's a list of video games notable for negative reception to prove that. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I was agreeing with you, wish I hadn't bothered. Szzuk (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While not the most qualified game, if the article's scope is expanded to include its sequel, there is almost enough to meet the
    ♔ 06:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 04:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, essentially per Lewis Hulbert. At some point Wikipedia is going to need to work out what would make a mobile game encyclopedically notable and figure out some kind of guideline for them. But that's beyond the scope of this discussion. This particular game though is not notable and doesn't have the required significant coverage by reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, coverage exists, but it's routine directory entry stuff that pretty much every piece of released software is going to get. Would need more coverage, or coverage in more widely circulating sources, before I was convinced this was notable. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:54, 29 August 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Block_Ops&oldid=1144347358"