Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microsoft Mahjong


 * 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. Many comments from all sides strike me as somewhat weak as they do not focus on the sourcing situation, which is the only thing that counts from a policy/guidelines perspective, but in the end there's no consensus as to whether we should keep, merge or delete this.  Sandstein  09:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Microsoft Mahjong

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is yet another case of WP:NOTTEMPORARY, and pretty much also WP:GAMEGUIDE. The fact that this game is part of a notable computing system does not make the game notable, and I wasn't able to find any independent critical reviews or in-depth sources about this game. We've had this with Chess Titans, Spider Solitaire (Windows), and Purble Place, which I've also nominated for deletion, and were having it with this article too. EditorE (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per EditorE. I originally hesitated about voting to delete, but rationally, it makes sense. Cheers, &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 01:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. A fun game, but not notable by WP standards according to a google search. King Jakob  C2 01:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep per precedents: Articles for deletion/FreeCell (Windows), Articles for deletion/Hearts (Windows), Articles for deletion/Solitaire (Windows). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 02:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Might I mention WP:WAX and the fact many of the "precedents" are actually considerably higher-quality than this article. King Jakob  C2 12:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should actually read WP:WAX before attempting to use it incorrectly. It does not apply to deletion discussions. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's been 6 days, but I must point out that WP:WAX is part of Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Ansh666 18:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood me - I meant that WP:WAX doesn't apply to using deletion discussions (as opposed to the mere existence of other articles) as precedents, whether in other deletion discussions or elsewhere. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Ansh666 18:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Mike  moral  ♪♫  04:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Mike  moral  ♪♫  04:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * (EC) Dogmaticeclectic has a point, which is why I hesitate in casting my !vote. But thinking about it, I don't really think it adds much to Wikipedia. While it's true many, many more people will have heard of this game than they have of 95% of your average WP entries, it just doesn't meet WP's guidelines in my humble reading of them. I could switch sides if other arguments spring up here, but I am not entirely convinced by precedents.
 * Cheers, &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 04:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:NOTTEMPORARY cannot be a reason for deletion. It says that, once a topic has received enough coverage to be classed as notable, it doesn't need continued coverage to maintain that notability. (So, for example, a book that was widely reviewed in the 1970s doens't become non-notable just because nobody's said much about it in the last 30 years.) Dricherby (talk) 09:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, actually it's a good reason, because the fact that the Macintosh is a very notable computer does not make the game notable, and we wouldn't we need ongoing coverage of a Macintosh by making articles of computer games bundled with the computer. It's still a non-notable topic. EditorE (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The concept that notability of Windows doesn't make bundled software notable is WP:NOTINHERITED. WP:NOTTEMPORARY has nothing to do with it. Dricherby (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Additional comment: WP:GAMEGUIDE is an invalid reason for deletion in this case, since there is other content present. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What in the Devil's name are you talking about? Most content (high score, Highest Scores, Winning Strategies and for getting a high score) look all pretty much GAMEGUIDE to me, and there's very little other content that is present here, not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. EditorE (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Additional comment: I have added more WP:RS to the article. I would ask that the other participants involved in this discussion re-evaluate their positions in light of this. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge - The only source of any type of notability and reliability is the supersite one (about.com is an SPS, and the gamespot one is not very detailed, and little about the specific implementation of Mahjong here). Verifable as installed with Vista but that's about it. --M ASEM  (t) 18:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "about.com is an SPS" - I'm still waiting for you to provide a link to such a consensus. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Review the archives at WP:RS/N for "about.com". Because anyone can become a contributor - though there is a screening process - that still doesn't make the people involved necessarily experts and they can post without editor oversight, making it an SPS. But it doesn't matter here on that - the about.com is giving zero depth outside of gameplay rules and UI details, which is far from secondary sourcing. --M ASEM  (t) 21:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support merge Perhaps the games could be succinctly described on one of the Microsoft Entertainment Pack pages. That comes pretty close to a deletion, but it's better than nothing.  LazyBastard Guy  20:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I managed to miss this one somehow. Like the others, I'm thinking weak keep on this one, because of the Gamespot article. More sources would be necessary for a good article, but it can squeak by for now. Ansh666 05:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. One secondary source here looks good enough to prove its notability. Apart from that, trim/rewrite inappropriate material. The Big Hoof! (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really a "significant coverage". If there were 3 or 4 other sources that have that same light depth (one paragraph), that might attribute to this, but we have no "significant coverage" across all sources given. Just enough to establish WP:V. --M ASEM (t) 00:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Apart from the found coverage, with lends credit to the Wikipedia notability of the subject, it is simply insane for whoever is not a Borg that a piece of software included in one of the most popular operating systems worldwide is considered "non notable". If our house rules make it so, then it is our notability rules that have to adapt. WP:GNG and WP:NOTINHERITED are guidelines (even if an important one), that should be applied with a grain of salt. One has ask herself, before nominating: what advantage to the readers does deleting this article accomplish? Is the encyclopedia and our readers' experience better or worse without this article? In this case I feel the answer is obvious: the removal of this article is of no benefit. Please remember we're here for the readers. -- cyclopia  speak!  15:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Cyclopia's reasoning. The guideline pages say there are occasional exceptions, as does WP:IAR.  Just common sense.  Hundreds of millions of people have this on their computer, unknown millions have tried it, and nothing gained by deleting the article.   D r e a m Focus  15:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * To both Cyclopia and DF, notability is not based on popularity, it's based on coverage. Just because millions of people have that piece of software doesn't make it appropriate to devote a poorly-sourced standalone article about it. Merging into an article about what is contained in Vista? Sure. Just not standalone. --M ASEM (t) 00:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the kind of reasoning showing that the WP ruleset, while generally okay, can fail catastrophically in edge cases. Yes, notability is usually not based on popularity, and that something is not popular does not mean it is non notable. However the reverse cannot be true: If WP-notability is at risk of dismissing something used regularly by millions of people, there is something wrong with our rules. That said, if a merge is a rule-compliant way of maintaining information, I do not disagree, but I still consider it an inferior solution. -- cyclopia  speak!  09:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We're not dismissing the topic, we're dismissing the need to have a stand-alone article on something that, given what little sourcing is there, can be explained in one or two sentences. There's simply not sufficient sourcing for a quality encyclopedic article on this game alone, but certainly sufficient via WP:V for supporting its existence in a larger topic. --M ASEM (t) 13:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The need is given by the simple consideration that something with such a wide user base has to deserve its own article, even if it is a permastub. Merging in a larger topic is better than nothing, but it is still unsatisfactory. -- cyclopia  speak!  15:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, not from an encyclopedic standpoint. Permastubs - ones that we're pretty confident have no chance of growing and where the topic can be discussed in a larger context - are unnecessary. We still want the term to be searchable, for sure - the fact there are millions of players makes that a no-brainer - so a redirect to an appropriate article that summarizes pre-installed Windows games with a paragraph to cover this game (as well as the others presently at AFD in other similar paragraphs) keeps the game's coverage to an appropriate level for WP, still documenting its existance, and puts its into the larger context of other Windows games so that a reader may get an idea of what other titles have been shipped with Windows before. If for some reason this gets a lot more sourcing in the future, we can undo the redirect and continue the article from where it was w/o losing previous contributions. --M ASEM (t) 15:32, 10 July 2013 (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.