Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purble Place


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Purble Place

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Similar to Chess Titans, this is a possible case of WP:NOTTEMPORARY (WP:NOTINHERITED). See the deletion discussion for Chess Titans on why I nominated this. EditorE (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Pointillist (talk) 10:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Pointillist (talk) 10:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep per precedents: Articles for deletion/FreeCell (Windows), Articles for deletion/Hearts (Windows), Articles for deletion/Solitaire (Windows). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Those aren't precedents - they have established WP:N individually, not simply inherited from Windows. Ansh666 23:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Those are precedents - this article satisfies WP:N individually as well. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How? This article has no WP:INDEPENDENT sources. Ansh666 02:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have any such sources right now, yes. That doesn't mean there aren't any. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I searched for and couldn't find WP:RS for it. Then again, I'm sometimes bad with searches. Ansh666 03:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've now added a WP:RS, proving that at least one does in fact exist. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - couldn't find WP:SIGCOV. Ansh666 23:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep - there is one WP:RS now. Ansh666 17:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * @EditorE, please make your case for deletion here, rather than instructing us to see another discussion, without even having the courtesy to link to that discussion.
 * @Dogmaticeclectic, apparently this article has no references, unlike FreeCell, Hearts, and Solitaire.
 * @Everyone. Many, many computer articles do not have significant coverage in reliable impartial sources. Even the articles about the biggest games (e.g. Call of Duty) are mostly supported by inadequate references (e.g. otherwise non-notable magazines that simply catalogue new games without any serious review of them). Some of the articles about major Microsoft technologies rely entirely on references that cite either Microsoft or their press releases printed verbatim. If we seriously want to delete all inadequately referenced technology articles, we need a consensus like the one that prompted the big BLP cleanup a couple of years ago. I don't think it is appropriate to delete individual articles until the wider consensus is established.
 * - Pointillist (talk)
 * That is very false. This isn't an electronics or even a Microsoft discussion, it's a video game discussion. Video game pages are mostly referenced using specialized video game news and review websites, such as IGN or 1up. Ansh666 23:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't intend to be false, in fact quite the opposite. No-one can deny there are some video game commentators who are recognized authoritative independent sources and there are others who definitely aren't. In my opinion, many of the sources for Call of Duty are in the second camp – or they're specifically reporting on units sold, which is a special case. Personally, I'd be quite happy to see all articles measured against referencing standards that are appropriate to their genre. The question is whether the games bundled with Windows should be referenced to satisfy conventional video games standards, or to "consumer/business PC citation standards" that are yet to be defined. I don't expect Purble Place would survive by either test, but the point I wanted to make is that AFAICS there is a vast amount of poorly referenced material around the world of Microsoft. If editors are concerned about that, I believe we need a wider discussion and consensus before embarking on a wholesale deletion exercise. - Pointillist (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge/Redirect if there's a proper target. Game is nonnotable, and most of the content is GAMEGUIDE. --M ASEM (t) 14:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point about the excessively detailed content. Hat tip to Dogmaticeclectic for finding non-Microsoft references for the article. What is it with finding secondary sources for Microsoft technology articles on Wikipedia? I just checked SQL Azure and it's got only four references: three citing Microsoft and one citing a self-published book. Likewise, Microsoft Message Queuing has seven citations to Microsoft and just one independent source, which is now a dead link. Well, there it is. - Pointillist (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've checked the sources added, and arguably only one qualifies as a third-party RS. (about.com is considered SPS). And that's only to meet WP:V. WP:N still fails as there is no significant coverage of the game in these sources - in fact, the length of this article here far exceeds how much is covered in the given sources in the first place, a sign that there's a problem here. We can same the game exists, elsewhere, but the sourcing far fails the allowance for a stand-alone article. --M ASEM  (t) 14:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "(about.com is considered SPS)" - Link to such a consensus? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Concerns about using about.com as a source can be found at Talk:About.com and by searching the Reliable Sources noticeboard. As about.com is a tertiary source, it is reliable only to the extent that it cites verifiable sources and/or is written by a recognized commentator. In this case the about.com source contains no citations and the author (Mark Baggesen) has no reputation. So Masem is right to reject it as a source. - Pointillist (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Additional comment: WP:GAMEGUIDE is an invalid reason for deletion in this case, since there is other content present. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What in the Devil's name are you talking about? This looks like a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS-type argument to me. Most content 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) 12:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Relies a bit heavily on those three sources but they prove its notability. The Big Hoof! (talk) 17:01, 7 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 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  15:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge Coming here from the Chess Titans discussion, I would say this could be merged into an article detailing the games released in this particular package. It seems to have a degree of notability to me, but not such that it deserves its own article.  LazyBastard Guy  19:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I've tightened it up a bit (see this revision) and though there's some description of the games' objectives there's no guidance about how to play. It is now no worse than a lot of other Microsoft-related articles&mdash;at least it has some independent sources, which it didn't have when EditorE nominated it. BTW, I don't accept that "we're here for the readers" can be any excuse for inadequately-sourced material. If something fails notability after a good-faith search, it isn't notable. - Pointillist (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Purble_Place has been viewed 14166 times in the last 90 days. Not as popular as the other Windows games up for deletion now, but still a lot of hits.  Chess Titans, Spider Solitaire (Windows), and Microsoft Mahjong are also at AFD now.   D r e a m Focus  13:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * How many of those hits have been from people visiting the article from the AfD? And besides, "it's popular" isn't a proper rationale. Ansh666 18:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "It's popular" is interesting, but we have no idea what it means. Perhaps these page-hits were searches for how to play the game, which per WP:GAMEGUIDE shouldn't appear in the article. On the other hand, it could be that 14,000 people – that's 155/day or 6.5 per hour 24x7 – hoped to see a balanced synopsis of third-party criticism of the game. Or maybe readers just get curious about stuff and look it up, and Wikipedia is where they go to find reliable information. It all comes down to what sort of encyclopedia do we want to build? and I don't think it is efficient to debate this at the level of individual articles. - Pointillist (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep the article has been improved since the listing, and I'm inclined to say this follows IAR. FreeCell, Hearts, Solitaire, Spider Solitaire, and others have articles.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 01:57, 14 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.