Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Block Ops


 * 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)

Block Ops

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  17:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * Keep: I removed a blog source and added the first two mentioned by, and while the article could still use some work, it's definitely good enough to meet the WP:GNG. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 06:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are a few reviews noted, but the game and the reviews are very small time. WP shouldn't have a page for every game that is on a smartphone. Notability isn't established in my opinion. Szzuk (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * 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 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)
 * Comment. Small time reviews don't establish notability, they establish small time products. Szzuk (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. and  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)
 * 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)
 * "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)
 * I know. I was agreeing with you, wish I hadn't bothered. Szzuk (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * 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)

 
 * 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 GNG as a series. Almost. The original has reviews from Slide to Play and 148apps, which is good by WP:VG/RS. The sequel only has listings—no real reviews. The Hardcore Droid website is a blog and not a reliable source. I expect there to be more reviews in the future, but for now we're got nothing and there are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me if non-English or offline sources are unearthed. czar ♔   06:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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 -  St ar bli nd  16:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 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).
 * 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.