Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rabbids Big Bang


 * 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. (non-admin closure) sst ✈(conjugate) 04:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Rabbids Big Bang

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nominating for deletion as a page created by User:Mr. Lama, a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Giovannigiulio. Electric Burst (Electron firings)(Zaps) 01:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  czar  03:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone  07:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone  07:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Is there a policy reason to delete the article simply because it was created by a sock? The game appears to be more than notable with a cursory search for VG related reliable sources, including coverage of it's announcement and release by TouchArcade, Gamezebo, IGN, VG247, Polygon, GameSpot, GameInformer... I could go on. If the article is deleted as a result of this AFD, is there any reason I cannot immediately recreate with new sources? -- ferret (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm more on the WP:DENY side. In my experience, one key way to stop persistent sock puppeteering and ban evasion is to systematically remove the created content. If not, the banned editor has no reason whatsoever to stop spawning sock accounts and adding yet more content, in defiance of community consensus. That said, Ferret, there would be no reason whatsoever why you couldn't immediately recreate with new sources (or any independent reliable source, as there are currently none) nor is there any reason why you couldn't improve the article now. I think that if you did, more editors might be inclined to !vote keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * After replying here, I found that the nom mass-nominated dozens of articles without any effort at WP:BEFORE. This article was created by the sock over a year ago. It's my view that the nom should withdraw, as he has on several of these after being challenged on WP:BEFORE. That aside, I'm about to add a Reception section to the article which will show a fair amount of coverage exists. -- ferret (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 6 sources integrated directly into the article, 4 more for later on talk page, and numerous more available with a quick search. Looks better now. -- ferret (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'm all for deleting articles just created by banned users, but this has been around for over 1.5 years, and been edited by many other editors. Its clearly a notable subject, based on the sourcing, and honestly doesn't even really look all that much like the banned user's version. There's no reason to delete this. Sergecross73   msg me  13:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep perhaps as the current sourcing seems convincing enough. SwisterTwister   talk  05:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. While it does have reliable sources, it's about a small mobile phone game. Couldn't this be merged into Raving Rabbids? --Soetermans. T / C 22:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * When an article looks like this, I'm in favor of merging, but when there's sourcing/content present like in this article, I see no issue with it being a stand alone article. Sergecross73   msg me  15:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as passing WP:GNG with multipel reliable independent in-depth sources, namely WP:VG/RS. It doesn't look like there's any content issues and the article was copyedited/sourced post-SPI, so deletion doesn't seem necessary for that reason. If really pressed, we can just recreate the article. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:47, 5 February 2016 (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.