Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Planets


 * 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   no consensus. Black Kite 00:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Crazy Planets

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unremarkable video game. The article is almost a month old and no assertions of notability have been made. Airplaneman talk 03:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as nominator. Airplaneman  talk 03:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve the article; we are talking about a Facebook game with almost 2 million users and almost 50,000 people who consider themselves "fans." It's nothing compared to games like Mafia Wars, but we have articles on far less known subjects.  PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 04:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete- Facebook has zillions of games and applications. Most of them, such as this one, are not notable. The standard for inclusion at Wikipedia is substantial coverage in reliable sources, no matter how many people like it. Reyk  YO!  05:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are directing the WP:ILIKEIT link at me, your claim is invalid as I'm not saying I like it (I'd never heard of it until this discussion), nor am I saying that all of the app's 2 million users like it; I am saying that the app has 2 million users. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 21:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Reyk. LotLE × talk  09:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete: Fails WP:WEB. Joe Chill (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No indication of importance and is not notable. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 06:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is made by one of the largest Facebook game makers (who is now a studio owned by EA) with millions of players. The only mark against it was its information was not helpful or detailed and substantial improvement and detail has been added to the article. WildElf (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My vote still stands as keep (I'm an inclusionist), but I must point out that the game's maker does not make the game notable, kind of like how graduating from Harvard University or another notable institution does not, in itself, make one worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 21:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 20:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as it lacks coverage by a vast amount of reliable secondary sources that prove its notability. -- LoЯd  ۞pεth  04:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems that the consensus here is delete. In my opinion, we should merge any useful content into Playfish rather than delete it entirely. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 21:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep These articles are fairly in-depth:, , , . Several trivial mentions in the news: , . A trivial mention in an academic paper: . There's also a ranking by "Casual Continent" (whoever they are) that places them in the top 10, as well as this one by "Inside Facebook". More links: The Vancouver Sun (Reuters?), Worlds in Motion (also on Gamasutra), The Independent, boingboing (is it a blog?), GamesRadar. SharkD   Talk  04:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I like PCHS-NJROTC's idea of merging in to Playfish, along with the possible sources listed in the above post by SharkD. Airplaneman  talk 05:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per the sources identified by SharkD which I think are sufficient to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 09:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * Relisted to allow for further analysis of the sources provided by SharkD. NW ( Talk ) 20:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This game is not popular enough there are other Playfish games that are more popular than Crazy Planets and they do not have their own article so why should Crazy Planets? JDOG555 (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Expand and Keep. Article needs slight cleanup and expansion, however, I find this article meets notability guidelines.  IShadowed  ✰  21:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - as usual, SharkD has found some great sources; 1Up is of course fine; Inside Social Games is a blog, but I believe Justin Smith qualifies for the exception given at WP:SPS. Marasmusine (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Great argument has been presented by WildElf for Merge. The fact that it was made by a Notable GameHouse does not make the game notable. Is everything Playfish or EA does notable, no. The only information presented is a How to game guide. Trim the How-To and up-merge to Playfish, if you must, but it still turns out as a delete once the How-To is gone, because there will be nothing left. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 05:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've stripped out the gamecruft, and made a start on implementing the sources linked-to above. Better? Marasmusine (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, looks like a great candidate for merge, now there is absolutly no assertion of Notability. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 16:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You honestly don't think that a full review by a major gaming website contributes at all towards notability?! Marasmusine (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, just like a Movie review does not count towards the Notability of a movie, nor a book review count towards a books Notability. Paid Reviews of things are, of themselves, WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Would a concert review make a band/group Notable, or even the event itself? Not a chance. The Subject of the Article must be Notable, in and of itself. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 21:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm curious - if you don't consider this kind of media coverage to be notability (though it exactly matches our general notability guideline), what kind of thing would you like to see to justify a seperate article? Marasmusine (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I will answer the question your really driving at. IMHO Reviews are a Primary sources. specifically, I am referring to "observations written by the person(s) who conducted or observed the experiments". How, in your opinion, does a review exactly match the GNG? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 23:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * By being significant coverage (i.e. critical analysis lasting for at least a few paragraphs) in a reliable publication (magazines / websites with an editorial process) independent of the subject (not by the developer or publisher of the game; not a press release). These are not primary sources: Video games are not experiments, but if one was to use that analogy, reviewers are not part of the design or publication process of the game. Look a little further down in WP:PRIMARY and you'll see that the description of "secondary sources" is spot on. I admit I've never seen your interpretation of this before! Marasmusine (talk) 10:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * a critical analysis ... hmmm. That's the question though, What type of review was it? This is an OLD argument, and one that has no consensus either way. In my opinion, Reviews by themselves don't count towards the WP:N of anything. fin. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 23:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep as it appears to be somewhat notable, however, the game guide stuff has to go. Mercilessly cut down on all the "you start with an x" and just paraphrase the entire thing; keep only what is relevant for WP and can be referenced. SMC (talk) 08:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - in my opinion, there is not enough significant third party, coverage to merit notability under WP:WEB.  Cocytus   [»talk«]  19:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete the article consists of 90% gamecruft, which has been re-inserted despite attempts to clean it up.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  19:55, 6 December 2009 (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.