Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santa Claus Saves the Earth


 * 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.  Sandstein  21:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Santa Claus Saves the Earth

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability concerns. The only references are database-like entries at GameFAQ, and a very bizarre Youtube video. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 18:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna start a discussion at Village pump soon, to make it so that all video games that were officially released on a console are notable for their own articles. Okay, so I get the concern for "non-notability" that the content is not verifiable. But I don't care how many references you have; the fact that Santa Claus Saves the Earth is a video game for the GBA and PS1 IS true and will forever be true. The name of the game will never change, and the gameplay will always be the same. Console games are constant, never-changing, and absolute. They should be treated like geographical locations. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Plus if you're gonna delete this one, why don't you start a rampage and delete all 2,000 or whatever of the other video game articles with only 1 reference. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, but wait, there are NEWS SOURCES THAT MENTION THE GAME: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Santa+Claus+Saves+the+Earth%22&tbm=nws CASE CLOSED ANYWAY!!! Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a rule that all console games are notable, and I don't think there should be. I also don't think a Vice article that says when people occasionally make lists of "holiday video games" this somehow ends up being included, simply for the lack of options. and only describes game as thoroughly broken and cheaply produced suggests that it's notable. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 18:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That suggestion would be a massive violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Wikipedia isn't a listing of all console games, just like it's not a listing of all PC games. If you want that, go to Mobygames. You are misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please let WT:VG know when you're about to start that discussion. I think a lot of us are very interested. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Look more closely. I saw SIX news sources that mention the game. The game can't be unnotable by Wikipedia's current standards. It'd have to be a huge coincidence:

Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/4w7mwn/video-games-also-have-holiday-classics-127
 * http://emorywheel.com/spyro-the-dragon-a-classic-masterpiece/
 * https://www.wired.com/2007/12/santas-top-five/
 * http://www.gram.pl/artykul/2013/12/24/grinch-ebenezer-scrooge-gry-wideo-czy-branza-nie-lubi-swiat.shtml
 * https://www.delfi.lt/mokslas/technologijos/verslas-is-lietuvos-pasieke-pavydetina-vartotoju-skaiciu.d?id=63603032
 * https://www.guiltybit.com/los-10-peores-juegos-psx/
 * Delete per nom. The only conceivable reason to keep would be that it was so bad that it received egregiously bad reviews and achieved notoriety - but this doesn't seem to be the case ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable video game. Articles listed are not significant mentions in reliable sources, so it fails WP:GNG.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You people are serious? This is a GAME! A GAME! And not only is it a game, but it's also a console game, a notoriously bad game (yes it is!), it was reviewed by Caddicarus who's like somewhere next to AVGN in fame, 6 news sources, and it's not even a franchise game like most bad games. It's an ORIGINAL pile of shit, and not just a pile of shit named after a TV show. Yes, it needs a Wikipedia article. Think about how much more useful it would be to have this article than to delete it. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * An article is either notable or it isn't, there's no sliding scale that says an unimportant, cool, original, or whatever you think the article is makes it get a free pass. You should read the WP:GNG and get an idea of what is allowed on Wikipedia or not.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, so Clyde, South Carolina is notable. Bullshit. If geographical locations get inherent notability, console games should too. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you really need to slow down and read up some on how WP:AFD works, arguments to avoid in the discussions, etc. You're throwing out invalid arguments faster than anyone can keep up at this point. Sergecross73   msg me  19:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that you spend more time finding suitable references for this article, that you spend less time worrying about other content (particularly other content which has different notability criteria by community consensus) and that you stop spending any time having a temper tantrum about this proposed deletion. Nick (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Why you're comparing geographical locations with video games is beyond me. You're saying WP:WHATABOUTX?!, while we're discussing Santa Claus Saves the Earth. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Failure of the WP:GNG, most sources are not reliable sources, or are passing/short mentions in listicle articles. Sergecross73   msg me  19:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Just because it exists, does not make it notable. Of the sources listed above:
 * https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/4w7mwn/video-games-also-have-holiday-classics-127 - a two paragraph summary of the game, and the article itself is not focused on the game
 * http://emorywheel.com/spyro-the-dragon-a-classic-masterpiece/ - It's mentioned in one throwaway sentence
 * https://www.wired.com/2007/12/santas-top-five/ - Same with the VICE article, a very short "hey this game exists"
 * http://www.gram.pl/artykul/2013/12/24/grinch-ebenezer-scrooge-gry-wideo-czy-branza-nie-lubi-swiat.shtml - It's noted as a game featuring Santa Claus in one sentence
 * https://www.delfi.lt/mokslas/technologijos/verslas-is-lietuvos-pasieke-pavydetina-vartotoju-skaiciu.d?id=63603032 - This focuses on the developer of the game, not the game itself
 * https://www.guiltybit.com/los-10-peores-juegos-psx/ - Again one sentence.


 * While the game was mentioned in these articles, it's not covered significantly "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention." These are all trivial mentions of the game. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails our general inclusion criteria and the video game notability guideline. The subject of the article is not the subject of significant coverage in the sources given. I've looked for other sources and can't find any myself. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. This looks like a SNOW situation. No significant coverage, no clear notability. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:38, 22 November 2017 (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.