Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peek-A-Boo Poker


 * 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. Merge discussion is encouraged to be continued on the article's talk page at editorial discretion. Regards,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 21:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Peek-A-Boo Poker

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article fails to establish the notability of its subject as required by Wikipedia general notability guideline by providing significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Fleet Command (talk) 08:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Fleet Command (talk) 08:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- --  RP459  Talk/Contributions 08:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- --  RP459  Talk/Contributions 08:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 *  Delete  No coverage in any reliable sources, only in video game repositories (GameFAQS, Mobygames, etc.). Trivial coverage in Books search, as far as I can tell nothing more than mentions are part of a larger topic of morally "adventurous" (my words) videogames. There's nothing else out there that seems to have a chance of conferring notability. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  09:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Its mentioned in plenty of books. Only one mention in a news article I found. . Hundreds of thousands of hits on regular Google. Not sure which sites about games are considered reliable sources, and which ones aren't, but it seems to be mentioned everywhere.   D r e a m Focus  09:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment There's a guideline on reliable sources for videogames. If you (or someone) can find significant discussion in a few reliable sources, that should establish notability. :) Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Click on the book search reviews and look at the titles of the books and their summaries. Don't they seem notable?   D r e a m Focus  15:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia: Arguments to avoid in deletion discussion — Lots of sources
 * That is a use
 * Comment: This citation of "arguments to avoid" is spurious. DreamFocus is here discussing notability and not reliability (the central point of "Lots of sources"). The only potentially applicable portion of the "argument to avoid," that sources should be listed individually to avoid user comment bias, is inapplicable to a link to Google Books. -Thibbs (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, he did not. If he had done, the article wouldn't have looked the same. All he has found is a couple of weasel sources, a couple of links that misleads us into thinking that something has reliable sources but it doesn't. Fleet Command (talk) 06:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weasel sources? How exactly is the Google book search results misleading?  Should I copy all the results here, instead of letting people just click a link to see them there?  Video Game Bible, 1985-2002‎ - Page 117, Sex in video games‎ - Page 40, The ultimate history of video games: from Pong to Pokémon and beyond : the ...‎ - Page 399, How to Be a Porno Producer‎ - Page 146, Power-up: how Japanese video games gave the world an extra life‎ - Page 297, The first quarter: a 25-year history of video games.  That's six books that look like notable mention to me.   D r e a m Focus  07:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. No because I dont' expect you to copy them here. Yes, because Wikipedia expects you to copy them into the article in the manner that Wikipedia calls "citing sources". Fleet Command (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait, you're voting "delete" simply because the reliable sources which have been offered for proof of notability do not appear in the article? ... You do know that these articles are freely editable, right? Deleting a notable topic for failure of adequate sourcing is not helpful if you know that adequate sources exist. -Thibbs (talk) 12:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No! Not just because "because the reliable sources [...] do not appear in the article". Because they CANNOT appear in the article. Because no matter what you do, you can't fashion an article out of these sources. You are using them as an excuse to affect the AfD in favor of keeping an article that you like but does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia. That is why Notability require evidence. You have no evidence. You only pretend to have a lot. Fleet Command (talk) 11:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In what sense can they not appear in the article? Presumably if they cover the topic then the issues they cover can be sourced or if the issues do not currently appear in the article then they can be introduced into the article and sourced. The existence of reliable sources demonstrating notability should not be regarded as an excuse to keep but rather a reason to avoid unnecessary deletion. I feel like there are unwarranted degrees of bad faith being read into my arguments. -Thibbs (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm! I dare say so. You are theoretically right: "The existence of reliable sources demonstrating notability should not be regarded as an excuse to keep..." But is it? That's why I believe WP:NRVE should be enforced with extreme prejudice. Anyways, I believe my answer at the bottom satisfies you. Fleet Command (talk) 09:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also nominated for deletion, Panesian(company that makes these games) and Bubble Bath Babes.  D r e a m Focus  15:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)*The reliable sources can be automatically searched by Google, there a link on that page provided. 29 results for this game.    D r e a m Focus  15:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia: Arguments to avoid in deletion discussion — Lots of sources
 * Comment: This citation of "arguments to avoid" is only tangentially related in this case. DreamFocus clearly identified his link as a list of reliable sources and thus the only applicable portion of the "argument to avoid" is that DreamFocus should have listed the sources individually to avoid user comment bias. -Thibbs (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, he did not. If he had done, the article wouldn't have looked the same. All he has found is a couple of weasel sources, a couple of links that mislead us into thinking that something has reliable sources but it doesn't. Fleet Command (talk) 06:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  MrKIA11 (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Gamespy mentions the Peek-A-Boo Poker, along with Bubble Bath Babes, and Hot Slots, as being the most wanted games for collectors, getting the highest prices. The game made a notable list, which is mentioned by many different news sources.   D r e a m Focus  16:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing about that list confers notability. We need "significant, non-trivial" coverage. The books you reference above don't seem to move beyond the "non-trivial" area, either, although they're much closer than this list, which is just that -- a list of 10 games from "Videogame Price Charts." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  16:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia: Arguments to avoid in deletion discussion — Arbitrary quantity Fleet Command (talk) 04:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is an essay, which anyone could put up anywhere, saying anything they want. Its meaningless.  Some will insanely argue that a book that sold millions of confirmed copies isn't notable, since the sales figures don't matter at all.  But common sense usually prevails, and bestselling novels are saved anyway.  A big number sometimes is quite important, depending on what it is a number of.   D r e a m Focus  07:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Best-selling novels aren't saved because of their sales figures, though. They're saved because they typically pass WP:GNG with flying colors. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  07:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Dream Focus, if you are rejecting the aforementioned essay then you are proposing that there is something wrong with it. If what you stated is all that you think it is wrong with it, then I am afraid you are wrong. WP:Notability clearly states what the threshold of inclusion in Wikipedia is and in the given criteria, there is no mention of arbitrary quantity. And by the way, no, not everybody can post an essay in Wikipedia namespace and expect it to survive more than a month (I'm being generous!) unless that essay is very solid. Since you did know this, it is obvious that you are not action in good faith. Fleet Command (talk) 10:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Books and news articles aren't the only way to establish that RSes exist. Numerous game-related websites exist that have been determined by the community to meet Wikipedia's reliability criterion. For the same reason as I've given in my votes for Panesian and Bubble Bath Babes, I would be willing to compromise to merge but nothing more destructive than that. -Thibbs (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment If you can supply an example of one (or several, whichever) of these sites and some indication of this the community determining that they meet reliability criteria, then I change my vote, presto! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  00:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia: Arguments to avoid in deletion discussion — Lots of sources Fleet Command (talk) 04:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a mischaracterization of my argument. To begin with I am saying that there are a lot of websites that can be used to source things reliably that are not books of newspapers. There is no question that I am correct in that. As far as this specific game is concerned, I confess that I have not spent a great deal of time examining the sourcing, but from the RSes I have found covering the related topics of Panesian and Bubble Bath Babes, I suspect that similar might exist in this case as well. Please note that I'm not just saying that there may be lots of sources, I'm saying that there may be lots of reliable sources. A subtle distinction, but one that makes all the difference. If the reliable sources don't cover this game with enough specificity then as I said, I vote "merge." -Thibbs (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood -- wasn't my intention to mischaracterize, I assure you. I'll check in on your sourcing work on Panesian and Bubble Bath Babes -- I haven't found much of anything for this particular game, but that's not to say beyond a shadow of a doubt that such sourcing doesn't exist. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  07:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. You weren't alone in misunderstanding me so it's probably my fault. I could have been clearer in my choice of language. -Thibbs (talk) 12:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just because a game violate's Nintendo's "family-friendly policy" doesn't mean it has to be excluded from Wikipedia. If Wikipedia is to become a complete archive of information about Nintendo games, it has to cover them all from preschooler games to adult pornographic video games. GVnayR (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Whoah, who said that the game needs to be excluded for "violating Nintendo's family friendly policy?" That is not at all why this AfD is happening. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  00:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And by the way, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a complete archive of anything. Wikipedia is not a directory. Articles that merit inclusion in Wikipedia must not only meet the requirements of WP:GNG, but also prove their notability. Fleet Command (talk) 04:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, Wikipedia is suppose to be an WP:ALMANAC, as well as an encyclopedia and other things. And you have to follow policy, not the suggested guidelines, and certainly not someone's personal essay.   D r e a m Focus  07:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, as I asked in the other game article related to this one that you nominated separately, what part of the policy of WP:NOTDIR do you think is relevant here? This isn't a phone book, or anything else on the list.   D r e a m Focus  07:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We're getting off track here, but what do you mean by "Wikipedia is supposed to be an WP:ALMANAC"? First I've heard of this. The link you have there doesn't seem to support what you're saying. Regardless, whether Wikipedia is an almanac, a bible, a phone book or a Swiss stopwatch, all content included has to pass WP:GNG. Let's not get sidetracked by whether or not WP:NOTDIR applies. The nomination, and the vast majority of discussion on here, focuses on notability. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  07:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTDIR can not possibly apply in any possible way. No policy is violated here.  Policy is all that must be followed.  This includes the WP:Five_pillars of Wikipedia.  Hmm... there was a policy page somewhere mentioning more about the almanac thing.  Listing every game ever released sounds more like an almanac to me than anything else.  As for notability, Wikipedia policy is that notability is determined by consensus, not mindlessly following rules.   D r e a m Focus  08:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is very simple Dream Focus: Wikipedia is not a collection of article which contain nothing but the most basic statistical data of all computer software or a certain genre of computer software. Such a thing is a directory and Wikipedia is not a directory. The threshold for inclusion of an article is notability. Judging by all the AfDs I've seen you in, you are perfectly aware of what I just said. Fleet Command (talk) 10:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, at this point I'm going to fade into the background on this one, because I'm not sure I have anything new to contribute and I think this is getting off-track with the "policy is good" vs. "policy is mindless" argument developing. Final words: I do not see any evidence anywhere of substantial, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. There is some wiggle room, as always, in what constitutes "non-trivial." I urge common sense. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  16:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So far, more people say Keep, it notable enough coverage. Three want it kept, two want it deleted.   D r e a m Focus  19:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As you should know by now, this is not a vote. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  03:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What I meant was, the consensus is that the sources provided are enough to confirm notability.  D r e a m Focus  04:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I know I said I'd walk away from this, but now you're saying that there is consensus here that notability is confirmed? Seriously? This AfD reads like consensus to you? Either way, as you put in your edit summary before to me, "you are NOT an admin," and you don't get to make that determination. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  06:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Changing vote to Delete or Merge ...to Adult video games, in the form of a brief descriptive mention (1-3 sentences or so). I've changed my vote at the related AfD on Bubble Bath Babes to the same, in the interest of finding meaningful consensus. I do not believe sufficiently reliable sourcing has been provided at either article to support full articles devoted to these games, but I am perfectly comfortable with incorporating what limited content we have on them into the Adult video games article, as in that situation the standards can drop down a bit to very easily incorporate the likes of Joystiq.com. I am also hopeful that this might be a more meaningful way to finding consensus on these rather hotly-debated articles, and I would urge anybody involved here to consider Merge as an option that might be amenable to everyone. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  06:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ginsengbomb. However, I am concerned that deciding to end this AfD with Merge would result in the article getting silently slain. (That is a concern that Dream Focus has introduced in his user page.) In time, I believe that honesty of one with oneself is the best policy and if oneself thinks that Merge might mean gradual death, it is better for one to vote Delete, so that he or she is honest with the others as well. Call it an act of coup de grâce if you wish. Fleet Command (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll let Dream Focus speak for himself, but I don't think that his argument was that if mergers resulted in the loss of good (verifiable, etc.) information then we should just give up and vote delete to save time. -Thibbs (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur. So, merge it is. Fleet Command (talk) 08:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Most people who have stated their opinions, have said keep. And why would you merge it?  It has coverage, so it passes the requirement for notability.   D r e a m Focus  12:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Because I believe coming to a compromise is sometimes more important than zealously enforcing the policy in its strictest of forms. Fleet Command (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge any verifiable material to Adult video games. I think I've mentioned elsewhere that an article on unlicenced video games might be doable, too. Marasmusine (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to Hacker International the company that created the game(s). There are sources but this is also a very short article so bundling it with the parent company and likely the other two videos can make for an interesting read. -- Banj e  b oi   15:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This is confusing. Did Hacker International or Panesian make these games? There are people arguing at these articles and others that all should be merged to Panesian (not something I support, given Panesian's lack of notability). I think, frankly, this confusion lends all the more weight to a merge to Adult video games. There's a home for all this stuff there, with appropriate redirects of course. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  06:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hacker International, which also - of course! - uses other names, made these and Panesian seems to be the American distributor although they could be a sub company. I think the merge should go to Hacker International and then appropriate content pulled out to Adult video games as needed. In this way we have the dry boring details of the product retained with the company article which likely are unneeded at Adult video games. -- Banj e  b oi   06:24, 14 March 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.