Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bubble Bath Babes


 * 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. A continued merge discussion would be encorage on the article's talk page. Regards,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 21:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Bubble Bath Babes

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article fails to establish the notability of its subject as required by Wikipedia general notability guideline: No significant coverage in reliable sources is provided. The external sources provided to GameFAQs and MobyGames are far from GNG requirements, generally because they list every game and specially because they show no evidence of notability. Fleet Command (talk) 10:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Fleet Command (talk) 10:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Google news search shows  which translated says
 * "A study by VideoGamePriceCharts revealed that video games considered rare in the United States can cost up to $ 20 thousand (approximately U.S. $ 34 thousand) each. Dentre as peças mais valiosas estariam títulos desenvolvidos para o NES (Nintendo Entertainment System), console da geração 8 bits dos anos 80 que vendeu mais de 60 milhões de unidades ao redor do mundo. Among the more valuable items were written for the NES (Nintendo Entertainment System) console generation 8 bits of the 80 that sold more than 60 million units around the world.

» Bubble Bath Babes "Bubble Bath Babes" This game is at the top of that list. So, it made the top of the charts, and was reported in a news source. A picture from Bubble Bath Babes is also used in this article.  D r e a m Focus  15:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Objection: Provided source does not provide any significant coverage of the subject of the article. A mere statistical stance between equally non-notable products and a picture does not make the subject of the article merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Fleet Command (talk) 05:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Also nominated for deletion, Panesian(company that makes these games) and Peek A Boo Poker.  D r e a m Focus  15:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The reliable sources listed in the Video Game guidelines are automatically searched with a link provided. This game gets 80 results.  http://www.joystiq.com/tag/bubble-bath-babes/ has it mentioned at the top article, and then the second half of the page gives ample coverage of it, plus screenshots.  This game is often mentioned in articles about unlicensed Nintendo games.   D r e a m Focus  15:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  MrKIA11 (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Fleet Command (talk) 05:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per DreamFocus' arguments and due to the fact that these games are well known within the community to be expensive collector items due to their limited releases as unlicensed games. The fact that they fly in the face of Nintendo's family-friendly image is also frequently noted. Here are three examples of on-point RSes: (1) an essay by Mark Methenitis, (2) an article by J.C. Fletcher of Joystiq, (3) CVG article. Other RSes could almost certainly be found. At best I'd compromise in favor of a merge, but deletion is not warranted. -Thibbs (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am afraid your sources are far from WP:RS. In case of Joystiq, even WikiProject Video games/Sources agrees with me. In addition, your source #1 does not provide any significant coverage on the subject of the article. Fortunately, CVG source is reliable and has provided a coverage. But is this coverage significant? Fleet Command (talk) 05:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Far from" WP:RS? I don't agree. To quote the situational limitation on Joystiq listed at WP:VG/RS, "use of this site and its affiliates should be carefully considered. Often, it is best to demonstrate the reliability of the individual authors sourced." There is apparently no restriction on the use of this source apart from a careful consideration of it. After researching who the author is (arguably regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question), it is my considered view that this source is usable. Regarding my source #1, one wonders why the author has included the term "bubble bath babes" as one of the merely 11 tags for the article if it is indeed as unrelated as you seem to believe. -Thibbs (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge or Weak keep - I don't think the coverage presented is quite significant enough, but the sources certainly make this verifiable. Possible merge targets could be Panesian (if kept) or Adult video games; The joystiq source is actually about "unlicensed games", which could be a good topic for a new article and a merge target. Marasmusine (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This looks like some kind of exploitation porn that is very harmful to young people.QueenJenny (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not a valid reason for deletion. Wikipedia is not censored. Reach Out to the Truth 20:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia has to cover every Nintendo game (Japanese, European, North American, or otherwise). That means covering every genre and every age group from preschool education ABC/123 games to adult porno video games. If your great-grandchildren are to have a complete knowledge about what was released for the Nintendo Entertainment System, this article must stay in as a part of Wikipedia. GVnayR (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Objection: Wrong! Wikipedia is not a directory and does not have to keep such a covering. Only notable material merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Fleet Command (talk) 05:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read WP:NOTDIR? What part of it do you think is being violated here?   D r e a m Focus  07:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is very simple Dream Focus: Wikipedia is not a collection of articles which contain nothing but the most basic statistical data of all computer software or a certain genre of computer software. Such a thing is a directory and Wikipedia is not a directory. The threshold for inclusion of an article is notability. Judging by all the AfDs I've seen you in, you are perfectly aware of what I just said. Fleet Command (talk) 10:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you insist, it is item 7. Fleet Command (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Read the example provided. That's about politicians mostly.  It doesn't affect this article, which is no different than other video game articles.  Four people say its notable enough to keep, you want it deleted, and one more person says delete but not for a valid reason.   D r e a m Focus  19:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What example? Did you see the correct item? Let's finish this play with words.  said:  "'Wikipedia has to cover every Nintendo game.' —"  WP:NOTDIR reads:  "'Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed.' — WP:NOTDIR"  That means Wikipedia does not necessarily have to have an article for every Nintendo games.   said:  "'That means covering every genre and every age group from preschool education ABC/123 games to adult porno video games. If your great-grandchildren are to have a complete knowledge about what was released for the Nintendo Entertainment System, this article must stay in as a part of Wikipedia.' —"  WP:NOTDIR reads:  "'Wikipedia articles are not: [~snip~] 7. A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Treat verifiable and sourced statements with appropriate weight.' — WP:NOTDIR"  Dream Focus, I am officially putting it to you that you are not acting in good faith and are trying to find every possible excuse to undermine me. I have faith that the closing administrator is not going to turn  a blind eye this malevolent behavior. Fleet Command (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith and stop making accusations here and elsewhere. Your last comments at 7 Sins were highly inappropriate.  You seem to be convinced everyone is out to get you.  And listing of games is not a directory.  The dictionary defines directory  as "an alphabetical or classified list (as of names and addresses)".  The directory rule is concerning list articles.   D r e a m Focus  12:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You said: "Your last comments at 7 Sins were highly inappropriate."  My last comment in 7 Sins AfD was:  "Weak Keep: Oh, wait! I see the article now. The ACTUAL reviews are cited! That's it: Notability asserted! Withdrawing from nomination. Thanks for the notice, Someone Another. Bless you. Fleet Command (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)"  Why do think thanking someone else is inappropriate? Because he could save the article and you couldn't?  "The directory rule is concerning list articles."  Nonsense. Fleet Command (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge Merge would be to Adult video games. In reading this conversation, the only actual attempt to source this that I've seen by a Keep nominator is the game's appearance on a list (which is clearly not "coverage") and some Joystiq.com links which, as has been pointed out above, is not strong sourcing (it's listed in the games sourcing guidelines as a situational source) -- and I would point out too that even the Joystiq.com content isn't actually non-trivial coverage of this game (I'd counsel anyone reviewing this AfD to actually read the Joystiq content), it mentions this game as an example of what the content is covering...Adult video games or ownership of rare games. Yes, the game's title appears in the title of one of the posts. That post, in particular, is the closest of anything being mentioned to actual coverage of the game itself (and not coverage of a category of games that this game happens to be a part of). This is why I would absolutely support merging this content, in the form of a one or two sentence mention, into the article on Adult video games. I have some bias in favor of deletion but I have no bias against a merge, and I'm not here to blindly find ways to exclude content from Wikipedia. I might even, in the interest of finding some way to meaningful consensus here, strike my "delete" opinion and just say "merge." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  06:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I find this to be reasonable. It's not ideal in my view, but I'm drifting more toward merge on all three topics myself. I'd favor a merge of the games into the parent company article, but I recognize that some find the coverage of them to be too trivial. A merge into adult video games if done properly would be considerably lower on my list of preferences, but infinitely superior to plain deletion of what is clearly a sourceable item of notable video game history. -Thibbs (talk) 14:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright. You have my green line. I believe coming to a compromise is sometimes more important than zealously enforcing the policy in its strictest of forms. Fleet Command (talk) 09:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If the article meets the requirements, as I believe it does, it should be kept. If the closing administrator says otherwise, then it gets deleted.  If you don't think any of the articles are notable on their own, why would you feel differently about having all three together?   D r e a m Focus  12:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Because "I believe coming to a compromise is sometimes more important than zealously enforcing the policy in its strictest of forms." Fleet Command (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Anything merged to a list would have to prove itself notable to remain on that list, or it'd be removed. And if its notable, it'd be able to have its own article.  Merge would by the same as delete in this instance.   D r e a m Focus  12:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's incorrect. Content in an article merely has to be verifiable, not notable. Notability is the hurdle that article topics have to clear, not the content in an article. So, no, a merge does not equate to a delete in this instance, not in the slightest. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  18:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to think so, but I've seen too many articles have entries removed by aggressive people saying they didn't have independent coverage so shouldn't be there. This happens CONSTANTLY.   D r e a m Focus  22:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, this does happen. However, the risk of bad faith editors erroneously removing content that was merged to the article based on consensus from an AfD is hardly a legitimate reason to not do the merge -- that's a risk with any action on Wikipedia. If it helps, I will happily include any merge target on my watchlist and make sure nobody screws with the merged content. I imagine you'd do the same, given your obvious interest. I'm sincerely not interested in having this content moved over and then having some editor unfamiliar with the situation delete it -- it's verifiable content, and has a home here! It is plainly verifiable in terms of content to be included in an article...just not (in my opinion) as its own article. As you might note from my user page, I'm a video game fan, and I actually have a personal soft spot for obscure NES titles (my wife thinks my interest in gaming history is ridiculous :). I would certainly pay attention to any merge. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  22:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, or possibly merge into an article covering this particular line of unlicensed games. There's enough on Google Books and a few bits scattered online to lead me to believe it could at least work, and deletion is being rather presumptuous. As it stands there is some weight to argue the game exerts notability. Yeah, I'm agreeing with Dream Focus on this one, I don't see a point or reason to delete at this time.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Objection The four Google Books results are passing mentions. There are no more than a maximum of three sentence coverage in each. As for those "a few bits scattered online", again scattered bits are not significant coverage. That means the subject of the article has not received any significant coverage and hence does not merit an article of its own. Fleet Command (talk) 08:13, 16 March 2010 (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.