Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cunt (video game)


 * 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. The consensus is that the sources provided are not sufficent, and a significant majority of them have their reliability in dispute. The !vote that says all video games should have an article has been disregarded. Courcelles 00:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Cunt (video game)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The only sources for this article are gaming blogs, which are not reliable sources, nor do they provide notability by themselves. To be honest, this just seems like a couple of guys designing an amateurish video game just for shock value, and then uploading it onto the Internet. I don't see any real reason why this should be notable. Stonemason89 (talk) 04:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with nom that references (of which there appear to be plenty) do not seem to come from any reliable sources. Jclemens (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete it's just a Newgrounds flash game (one of many thousands), and the lack of attention from reliable sources isn't because it's oh-so-shocking (or, to be more accurate, a 13-year-old boy's idea of what they imagine "oh-so-shocking" to be), but because reliable sources tend not to care about Newgrounds flash games. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete At least one of the gaming blogs seems to be a RS, but the coverage isn't terribly extensive and most of the sources are unreliable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete – I'm really surprised by how much news it got, but it looks like once the news of its release is over, there's not much else to say. This game was popular in a very small niche of the gaming community for a few days in June 2009, and after that it's basically over. Kotaku exposure was impressive, though. --01:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seriously?  We have to sit around and discuss this for a week?  Really.   JBsupreme  ( talk ) ✄ ✄ ✄	 07:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – Hate to go against the grain, but several of the sources in there I consider reliable, including Kotaku, RockPaperShotgun, and PopMatters; just because they're not published in print or are in a weblog format means that they are disqualified from RS. –MuZemike 02:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The RockPaperShotgun articles provide only trivial mention of Cunt. mentions it on a list of other games.  is really an interview mainly about Gish.  Destructoid is a general interview with the creator. Kotaku and PopMatters are the main two to establish any notability. The rest are blogs, unreliable and with less uses than toilet paper. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep (article creator) these are reliable sources, and though I'm no great fan of the subject (I created it so it was at least a halfway sensible representation on WP) WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no rationale for delete. The sources:
 * Games not to show your mother - Alec Meer is a games journalist, reliable source.
 * This entire post... - Derek Yu is a noted independent video game developer, his opinion of the works of other independent developers is perfectly usable, reliable source.
 * Play this Thing is the review website of game developer Greg Costikyan, 'the99th' is the site's managing editor Patrick Dugan. Both men have been interviewed/quoted in magazines etc. as commentators on indie games. Reliable source.
 * Pop Matters is widely published and pieces are reviewed by editors. reliable source.
 * The Kotaku opinion piece is exactly that, therefore usable, the site is a widely recognized as a source of up-to-the minute gaming news.

There is more than enough content within those sources to satisfy the notability guideline. I would express that I FUCKING DESPAIR that sources get thrown on scrapheap without even a cursory glance, but I won't. Someoneanother 06:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Tigsource is not a reliable source for anything but the opinion of Derek Yu. This does not support the notability of the subject. Notability is not associative; not everything Derek Yu touches or looks at becomes notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. --Odie5533 (talk) 09:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Can I comment on your form here, or would that distract from the issue at hand? --Kiz o r  17:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Every video game should have its own wikipedia article.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's simply not true; see WP: N, WP: INDISCRIMINATE, etc. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll think about that next time I try and create my own video game ;) –MuZemike 19:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The references are satisfactory, both to my personal standards and to my understanding of WP's video game project's. The subject is impressively distasteful, but if we make that an argument for deletion on the fourth most popular site on the Internet, we should save everyone some time by blowing up the encyclopedia and going home. Thanks to Someone another for a good execution of his strange idea. --Kiz o r  14:43, 7 August 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.