Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chip's Challenge


 * 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. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Chip's Challenge

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

In short, the Chip's Challenge topic has not received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to maintain a stand alone article per WP:GNG. I'm not against cobbling together an article based bits and pieces from reliable source coverage. However, the only info I found was:. These sources all kind of say the same thing, which collectively give only about two to three sentences of useful content for a Wikipedia article. That's not enough info to maintain a stand alone article. One news article noted about Atari Lynx console, 1989 that it "wasn't a roaring success," giving a reason "Plus, it didn't have Tetris. Or Mario. It had Chip's Challenge. Which says it all really." The Wikipedia article appears promotional in nature, and, in a recent Conflict of Interest report, the poster noted that this was spreading to Wiktionary. The Chip's Challenge Wikipedia article should be deleted. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * keep It's a 20 year old game, it was part of Microsoft Entertainment Pack and so was widely distributed, it ported to every platform short of microwave ovens and it was a favourite for office solitaire with anyone tired of Minesweeper. There's no issue of notability here. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * keep Agree a classic game that has defined generations of new puzzle games Allack (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)  — Allack (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 


 * keep The game continues have an active following, with new content being generated by the fans. It has inspired a spiritual successor, Chuck's Challenge by the same game designer.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.144.230 (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)   — 67.174.144.230 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 


 * keep --82.4.229.82 (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep the article does have promotion issues, for example there's no reason to have a Facebook-type photo of the programmer on there, but it is notable and familiar to pretty much anyone who used a computer in the late 80s / early 90s. It has sequels and even numerous clones.  I wouldn't read too much into the Lynx mention either, it's basically a coment on the game's relative simplicity rather than its popularity level--in a few years people might similarly look back on today's smartphones and write, "It didn't have Halo. Or Skyrim. It had Angry Birds." Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Starblind summed it up pretty well, I think. The article as written does need cleanup though. Jamesa7171 (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with historical context. Games deserve their place in history. 69.91.90.164 (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)  — 69.91.90.164 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 
 * KEEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.5.156.138 (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)  — 87.5.156.138 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 
 * Keep - You have got to be kidding me. One star editor! ONE STAR! - Tom P. 92.0.63.90 (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)  — 92.0.63.90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. '
 * Keep There is no way this article doesn't meet WP:GNG. The game's a classic, it's been distributed widely, and I'm certain if having enough articles to support it is your problem then more articles could be dredged up. Ducknish (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep - AfD is not clean-up; any NPOV/promotional issues the article may have do not detract from it's evident notability (which was explained in detail by Snowblind).  Salvidrim!   23:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This game has emulators build JUST FOR THIS GAME, not like MAME or a console emulator. This game is actively being played, and new official levelpacks continue to be produced.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.89.151.115 (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)   — 71.89.151.115 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 
 * Keep Deciding that simply deleting this article would be a great idea is quite offensive to our community. Yes, the article does need cleanup. But NO, this game was not "unsuccessful." It may not be obvious that people still play this game, but you have to be really careful when it may be offensive to those who do (such as myself). --Big Oto (talk) 00:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Really? Deletion of a page that is my favorite game and always will be? No!! ONE STAR! I SAID ONE STAR! -Zane  — 99.47.192.176 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC). 
 * Keep, but the sudden influx of angry, brand new editors is pretty alarming. I won't be WP:OUTING anybody, but I'm pretty sure that at least one of the people voting runs a fan-site. Rather than insult another editor, who is justly voicing an opinion, the best thing to do is find WP:RELIABLE sources, and if you are not comfortable editing Wikipedia, post them on Talk:Chip's Challenge. Remember, please keep it civil. Grayfell (talk) 02:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Wikipedia is not the place to be a source for a topic when things like fame, importance, or popularity do not prompt reliable sources to write about that topic. When you look at the fact that reliable sources that are independent of the subject have not written enough about this topic to maintain a stand alone article and, per the above, this "game was widely distributed," "has an active following," and "is familiar to pretty much anyone who used a computer in the late 80s / early 90s," these make it clear that there isn't enough source material for the article. The comments above have not yet sufficiently rebutted this. Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy. WP:GNG is clear in its requirements. Give all the SPAs and that the only person who has brought for reliable source material is the AfD lister requesting deletion (me), it's important that participants comment on reliable sources that address the Chip's Challenge subject directly in detail. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Uzma Gamal that was a fair comment, but as the text has since been edited to remove non-factual information I suggest you re-review the page. Allack (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article has a large amount of independent and significant coverage from reliable sources and satisfies WP:GNG. This is obvious per a Google New Archive search.  In that list of articles, if all the article does is note that the subject recieving significant coverage is "like" Chip's Challenge, to me, that's an indication of notability.  It's apparently so well known that it's a type of gold standard or precursor for similar games.  This concept is present in several inclusion guidelines but as there is no inclusion guideline specifically for video games, I think we're may have to apply common themes in inclusion guidelines.  There article and Wiktionary need cleanup (I commented on the report at COIN) but that doesn't justify deletion of the article.  There are also several !votes here from SPAs that should probably be ignored based on their lack of citation or addressing of WP inclusion guidelines.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome  18:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - There may not be a lot of information at the time of the game's release to justify notability, but its the reputation its gained after the fact as a source of inspiration for other games that makes it appropriately notable. It's not an equivalent example, but it is like how kill.switch, a mediocre game for the PS2, is basically known to have introduced the modern idea of cover systems in games that is prevailant for most.  Similarly, Chip's Challenge appears to be the basis for most top-down, tile-based puzzle/logic games from the sources I'm seeing.  That's sufficient for notability here. --M ASEM  (t) 19:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the lack of discovered sourcing which would easily let the article pass the GNG, yet recognizing that the topic is probably notable and that we should have information on it, it makes sense to me that the information which is verifiable should be merged to Microsoft Entertainment Pack. This is obviously a possible solution even with a keep closure, though I would note that there seems to be a case of meatpuppetry here (which I would think makes this no less likely to close as a keep given the number of established !voters). --Izno (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Disagree as Chip's Challenge was original an Atari Lynx video game and Microsoft Entertainment Pack is only one of the many platforms the game was ported to. Allack (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Shrug. I've cleaned up the article substantially. I would suggest you avoid continuing to edit the article, because you seem to have a conflict of interest of some sort. Furthermore, the article needs reliable sourcing to make the information in it verifiable, of which the likes of YouTube is not. --Izno (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Reliable source and COI seems to be a circle argument. Regarding your edit I think it is brutal, but the page is better for it. My only concern is going forward is the page is going to need to be maintained, and if I keep such a firm edit another editor is going to claim COI. Allack (talk) 06:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really. Bring up possible changes on the talk page. If no one responds, then edit it yourself. Just don't have the goal of making this a piece of advertisement. Neither you nor any other Wikipedia editor wants that. If there's a degradation in quality, you are probably okay to edit the article. Just do try to bring more reliable sources about the game forward. YouTube isn't good enough, and I'd remove those citations to encourage better ones myself if I didn't think you were working in good faith. --Izno (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If there is sockpuppetry going on here, it's not as flagrant as it appears. This page was posted on a CC discussion group, causing a number of new editors to come here and voice their support. Jamesa7171 (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Meatpuppetry != Sockpuppetry. The former is exactly the same as what you mention (one person externally canvassing many persons to use accounts to edit/discuss); sockpuppetry is one person controlling many accounts himself. As you so say, there is decidedly a case of meatpuppetry here, but as I said earlier, there are enough established editors without personal interest in the discussion !voting to keep the article that it's probable that the article won't be deleted. --Izno (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep- I am satisfied by the sources provided. Reyk  YO!  23:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per all of the above. The game was very popular back in the day. --Ixfd64 (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I came here because Chip's Challenge was recently cited as an influence during a game design discussion. It was a unique and important small game that still has important historical value in 2012.  This article was useful to my work. Coreycole (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2012 (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.