Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015 (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Some "keep" arguments are notably weak because they don't address the reasons advanced for deletion, such as "as notable as any other video game", or "I don't think it should be deleted just because it's offensive", when the nomination makes clear that this is not the argument being made here. Among the other opinions, we have consensus that sourcing is too weak at this time to meet WP:GNG.  Sandstein  07:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I understand the WP:NOTCENSORED arguments. This is not about censorship. I am not a Muslim, not personally offended. The reality is, this game has simply not received significant coverage in reliable sources. At the first nomination, some suggested additional coverage would occur. This has not happened. WP:NOTCENSORED does not mandate inclusion of every potentially offensive topic AusLondonder (talk) 08:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 08:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 08:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 08:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails GNG. If this was a non-controversial game, like a flash game, and it had the same amount of references, it'll be a no-brainer. CerealKillerYum (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep What weird interpretation of GNG are you using that this subject doesn't qualify? The first two references alone give GNG passing coverage  In fact all the references in the article (expect ref 3) offer significant coverage in reliable sources. Please explain how all these sources don't pass GNG. Winner 42  Talk to me!  17:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Mentions in a couple of articles from outlets such as Vice do not meet WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 05:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * These aren't mere mentions, the sources are reliable and they provide significant coverage which is the definition of GNG passing coverage. Winner 42 Talk to me!  05:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't agree. Not all those sources are reliable. AusLondonder (talk) 10:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Epoch Times, éVice News, Republika, and MeriStation all aren't reliable? Please read WP:RS again. Winner 42 Talk to me!  16:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. Throwaway game covered minimally as news posts, no serious reviews or in depth coverage.  This has gather less coverage than Vice's London Piss Dungeon.  The game is so stupid that there is no serious commentary, compare that with Slave Tetris, where we have coverage into why people believe the game is wrong, and what we can learn from it. - hahnch e n 09:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that the coverage this game has received is somehow routine? Winner 42 Talk to me!  16:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Its the exact opposite. Video games are things people play for entertainment value. This game is controversial and all coverage about the game is about how it is controversial, not about how the game was made, reviews it received, music, sound, graphics, or any other quality that would be fitting of a video game. For that it fails the "significant coverage" requirement of the GNG which is defined as ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail" . CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails GNG, endorse CerealKillerYum's point that all coverage is about the offensiveness of the name/game. The little coverage there is, is about the controversy not the game itself, which has attracted almost zero coverage. Pincrete (talk) 11:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep There was alot of talk about this game around the time the Charlie Hebdo shooting happened. I don't think it should be deleted just because it's offensive. Illstillbehere (talk) 09:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note to reviewing admin: Illstillbehere has 4 edits at this time, 3 of them were to this page, CerealKillerYum (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As I made clear, I did not nominate this for its offensiveness or otherwise. I nominated because it is non-notable. AusLondonder (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:GNG which requires not only significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, but also coverage which persists over time. The sources available are so-so, but all of the coverage comes from the same 3-day span, with next to nothing since then (though I'm content to switch my !vote if others find such sources). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 01:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete This falls under WP:SENSATION. A game, that caught the attention of a small number of media outlets, briefly.  a quick search here:    I cannot find that it got either enduring or extensive coverage, or that objections to it received significant coverage.  Flag me if anyone demonstrates significant coverage, and I'll revisit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - The game itself seems to fail GNG but the contraversy about it, may not. Is there an article about similar contravercies? It can possibly be merged into it. Settleman (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The controversy would likewise have to pass WP:GNG, meaning significant coverage [of the controversy] in multiple reliable sources over a period of time. As there seems to be 100% overlap between coverage of the game and coverage of controversy surrounding the game, it seems unlikely sufficient sources about the latter exist. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 17:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is nowhere to merge it, my vote is Delete. Settleman (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is as notable as any other video game. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  14:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why using a policy based rationale. Pokerkiller (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the reviewing admin should note that this editor does seem to have difficulties understanding deletion policies. This editor seemed to discover this deletion discussion after I strongly objected to their speedy deletion (!) nomination of National Hindu Awareness Campaign Nepal a constitutional campaign in Nepal led by a former parliamentarian which has met with the Prime Minister and has achieved national English-language media coverage. Yet they think this is crap is notable on the back of coverage from those who brought us the infamous London Piss Dungeon! AusLondonder (talk) 05:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * They also consistently nominated articles for speedy that are not suitable, eg a peer reviewed journal Electronic Book Review and the Roman Catholic Church in Turkmenistan. Both with actual claims to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 05:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete outside some coverage made by a couple of news media blogs (which usually runs independent from the main source) at the time of release, some of whom are tabloids that don'tmeet our guidelines in reliable sources, this game received 0 long-term coverage. Fails wp:gng and wp:notnews Pokerkiller (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable troll. A few weakish refs. Carrite (talk) 05:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article clearly has multiple sources that are giving it significant coverage, and were written solely about the game. The persistent coverage point is invalid, as many video games receive coverage only when they're released and are still considered notable. —Torchiest talkedits 13:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not invalid, it's the WP:GNG. If other articles exist based on coverage limited to a few days, they don't meet the GNG either. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The GNG states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." There's nothing in that guideline saying coverage must last for months or years. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply to this topic. —Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 15:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time..." &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 15:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete -mostly pr Carrite, & pr nominator Huldra (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - the arguments about the fact it would be a "video game" are not right. It is not notorious as a video game. It is a provocation/joke/ripost, whatever but in that area. The question is therefore to determine if this "provocation/joke/..." is notorious. For me, the answer is no. The links given in the article are primary sources in the sense that they participate to the provocation/joke or to its promotion. We would need several references in higher quality newspapers to assess notoriaty (eg NYT, LeMonde, Guardian, Das Bield, ...) Pluto2012 (talk) 10:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - sufficient coverage for this to pass WP:GNG, albeit barely. SSTflyer 11:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete it's an WP:ATTACK page, pure internet trolling Kraxler (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2015 (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.