Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Butterscotch Shenanigans


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Butterscotch Shenanigans

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Brand new game studio, with several games. Their article appears an almost complete copy from their company website. scope_creep (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as spam & borderline A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this is a case for WP:TNT or possibly drafting. I'm seeing a number of returns in the WP:VG/S RS search engine, but per K.e.c., this looks more like spam than a decent article. Either move to draftspace without redirect or delete. --Izno (talk) 13:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep if a lot of work is put into it by the VG crowd. L3X1 (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You should predicate your !vote not on whether work is put into it but whether the topic is notable (see WP:SURMOUNTABLE and especially WP:RUBBISH). --Izno (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it falls more into this paragraph "In the Wiki model, an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such an article is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and such articles can still be of benefit to Wikipedia. In other words, the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion." than the following paragraph. The article needs to reformatted and expanded, the creators and date put into a sidebar, and the games created down in a list below. Whether or not they're notable is a discussion that will last to the end of days. Just IMO.L3X1 (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment @L3X1, I don't think that it true, your rationalising it. It is a straight up copy of their website, which means it's a copyright vio issue. scope_creep (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * From WP:CV "If there is no such older version, you may be able to re-write the page from scratch, but failing that, the page will normally need to be deleted.". So it rather than delete it should go to the video game people for WP:NUKEANDPAVE as stated above by Izno. Edit, I'm kinda new here, and while I have read the policies, I haven't really seen them being born out. L3X1 (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * please read WP:Notability very carefully before you start commenting at AfD, please. ansh 666 19:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Read it. And IMO it passes notability, being the maker of a popular game that has not only won awards but has it's own Wiki page: Crashlands. The part of WP:NOTABILITY that I think it passes is: WP:SUSTAINED, the patroller who marked this AfD would have you believe this company started yesterday, when in fact it's been around since 2012. Crashlands is not their first game, but when it launched in January 2016, it made big news (as is still making news). I think the "Delete" crowd is trying to use WP:ARTN to back their claims, when they are forgetting that if BScotch goes, so should Crashland, except Crashlands is Notable, so so is BScotch. The two being intertwined, so I voted Keep.L3X1 (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Notability is inherited. If one topic is notable, then that does not mean that a closely-related topic is also notable. --Izno (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, it has to pass all parts of the guideline, not just a single part. ansh 666 21:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - This seems to fall under WP: Too soon. The attention for Crashlands is helpful, but nowhere near enough to justify an article on the developer by itself, and we can't be sure that they'll eventually achieve notability.--Martin IIIa (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Crashlands - not ideal (and that game is borderline as well), but considering that it is a company that exists with a related product, it's probably a reasonable search term. ansh 666 23:45, 10 January 2017 (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.