Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don't Wake Daddy


 * 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. Still some debate over the sufficiency of the coverage in the references, but the article has improved significantly and the consensus is to keep.-- Kubigula (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't Wake Daddy
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable children's board game, unsourced. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 05:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep there was a point where kids' TV was inundated with commercials for this thing. JuJube (talk) 05:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, I remember the commercials as well. MrPrada (talk) 05:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Remembering the commercials is not an assertion of notability. Non-trivial coverage of them might be. Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 05:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: Wikipedia's definition of notability requires that sources be "independent of the subject". A television commercial is clearly not independent of its subject. Just because something is heavily advertized (and so far there is only non-verifiable "original research" to suggest this thing was heavily advertised) doesn't mean it had any significant impact on the culture at large. Wikipedia should not be in the business of merely regurgitating television commercials--or advertisements of any sort. TheScotch (talk) 06:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, as someone who grew up in the 1990s, I can assure you that this was heavily advertised, at least in the USA. We don't have to put that in the article if we can't cite it to a good print source, but it is basically true. Zagalejo^^^ 07:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's not a question of what goes in the article; it's a question of what constitutes evidence of notability. Again: a television commercial is not "independent of the subject", and even if it were your mere assurance that it appeared in commercials is "original research".TheScotch (talk) 07:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that it isn't, and I wasn't using that specific statement as an argument for notability. Zagalejo^^^ 07:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep It's remained available in stores for at least sixteen years, which is a pretty good run for a board game. I'm sure we could scrounge up enough material for a couple of sourced paragraphs. I'll get going on that when I can access Newsbank. For the time being, I can say that it has an entry in this book, which is a good sign. Zagalejo^^^ 07:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I don't see that being "available in stores" constitutes having a significant impact on the culture at large (which is not to suggest I've ever seen it at a store--I haven't). It seems to me that merely listing the inventory of "stores" (with description) is tantamount to advertising; it's what commercial catalogs do. TheScotch (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that it's still being produced over a decade after its release is a sign of its enduring popularity with young people. I don't know anything about you, so I can't explain why you've never seen it. Zagalejo^^^ 07:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither advertisement nor inventory is proof of "popularity", a fortiori cultural impact. It's odd that you've cited a commercial catalog in an apparent attempt to rebut my charge that this is tantmount to a commercial catalog. TheScotch (talk) 08:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I had to offer some proof that the game is still in production, and if it's still in production, then someone must be buying it. Otherwise, the company would spend its resources on something else. This, in my opinion, is just as notable as any mainstream video game, and we've always kept articles on those games so long as they were reviewed by gaming magazines. Zagalejo^^^ 18:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: "and if it's still in production, then someone must be buying it.":


 * It doesn't follow that it's "popular". It doesn't even follow that an economically significant number of persons are "buying it". Many companies often do foolish things--although it's not our place to say whether this would be foolish; there could be all sorts of extenuating circumstances. In short, your argument is pure speculation.


 * Re: "I think you're expecting a higher level of cultural impact than is required by Wikipedia standards.":


 * It's clear that I'm expecting a higher level than you, but I shouldn't think it valid to judge what is appropriate by comparing it to the lowest level that has temporarily managed to squeak by. TheScotch (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. Never heard of this game before, but I found some references in Google Books, which I added. Klausness (talk) 12:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  14:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It has to be more than a simple mention in a book, nothing that has been presented thus far could be considered non-trivial. Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 14:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The two references that have been added to the article seem to me to be enough to establish notability. Deor (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The two book references that are added are important for verifiability, but they appear to be simple mentions of the game. Therefore, they are not assertions of notability. Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 16:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete and don't wake me up when you do it. This one fails on notability, and signifigant non-trivial coverage by reliable sources, appears to be original research as well. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The Dictionary of Toys and Games entry alone should be sufficient to establish notability. That's enough to satisfy Durova's "dead-trees standard" (an entry in a paper encyclopedia, including specialized encyclopedias). Zagalejo^^^ 18:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * comment there's no need to filibuster this debate, I think we all get that you think it should be kept.Beeblbrox (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not allowed to defend my opinion? In any case, I've started adding some refs to the article. Zagalejo^^^ 19:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Per WP:HEY. This thing is now probably over sourced if anything... Hobit (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is over-sourced. The problem is that almost every one of the sources listed are trivial Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 17:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think they're that trivial. The sources don't just mention the game in passing; they make significant claims about the game's popularity. Regardless, the game still has an independent entry in a reference book about American toys, which should clinch its notability, IMO. Zagalejo^^^ 18:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The game also served as the inspiration for a series of works by Martin Kippenberger. I'm trying to find more information on that. Zagalejo^^^ 18:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to get a hold of one of these, but that might take a while. (I can't get previews of the pages I need.) Still, I hope you'd concede that this game at least has borderline notability. Zagalejo^^^ 19:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think an entry in a toy reference book is an assertion of notability. Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 21:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The sources show that this has far more notability than most of the computer games that are kept at AfD on the back of a couple of reviews in online magazines. A lot of people seem to have the idea of which sources best show notability the wrong way round. Print sources demonstrate far more notabilty than online ones, not less, because they involve much more effort and expense to produce. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Here is one more reference: http://www.imperfectparent.com/articles/articles127_1.php. When searching the web for stuff, I did find a number of people who called it things like "the Candyland of my generation" and the like. I'd never heard of it... Hobit (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Also per WP:HEY. Secondary references to the game like Kippenberger appropriation, derivative children's book, and awards help it cross the line for me. Article is greatly improved. - Owlmonkey (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Despite claims to the contrary, the coverage of it the mentioned sources is not trivial - for example, the Dictionary of Toys and Games devotes the better part of a page discussing Don't Wake Daddy and ONLY Don't Wake Daddy - hardly a passing mention or trivial reference, the authors of that encyclopedia clearly felt that it was an important enough game to devote a section to specifically discussing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coanda-1910 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Multiple sources, non-trivial coverage, game has remained in print for an extended period of time. Edward321 (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2008 (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.