Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snowden Run 3D (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   keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Snowden Run 3D
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I sm aware this has references. It is nonetheless totally trivial, and inappropriate for an encyclopedia.  DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video games-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 05:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm cleaning the article and I noticed that several of the sources were repeats of the Kotaku source. I did remove one from Hot Hardware that didn't really look like it'd be a RS per our guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. If there was a section in Snowden's article for appearances in "other media" (games, television shows such as South Park, etc) then I'd suggest a merge there. I have no problem with anyone wanting to add such a section to his article if there's enough out there to warrant it being added. Otherwise DGG is right- the coverage of this is fairly trivial when you get down to brass tacks. There wasn't that much coverage of the game, all things considered, and what is on the article is pretty much it for the most part. There do not seem to be any reviews in any reliable sources and a lot of the coverage on other sites tends to be just a repost of one of the articles already on this page. I have no problem with some of this being re-created in the future if the programmer's other game gets notice (although I note that the IndieGoGo fundraiser has received little attention and most of the coverage is just notifications so it's a bit soon to have an article for the programmer) but this just doesn't justify an article right now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - When a video game is getting dedicated articles devoted to covering a video game, it easily meets the WP:GNG. I mean, there are high level sources covering this, like CBS and CNN. Not passing mentions, but full articles on it. Sure, Reviews/Reception are a common path to meeting the GNG, but they're certainly not the only way. Is it a terrible, cookie-cutter game? Probably. But it doesn't matter, because that's not a reason to delete it. Sergecross73   msg me   17:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have completely reorganized and rewritten the article to demonstrate that it meets the WP:GNG. It no longer looks like garbage, and has been expanded to just more than a stub currently. (Side note: So the arguments don't go there down the road, my motivations to save the article are not politically based at all. I'm largely indifferent there. I'm motivated to save something related to video games and parody, that's all.) Sergecross73   msg me   19:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - This article was first nominated for deletion in October 2013. The result of the discussion was no consensus. This second nomination, coming just four months later, is unwarranted. Edward Snowden is still very much in the news, and only this past week a $99 Snowden Action Figure was introduced onto the market, with considerable media coverage. The video game article thus remains pertinent to an overall understanding of Snowden's cultural impact. If an editor finds fault with its particulars, revise it. But there's no reason to delete it. JohnValeron (talk) 02:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Sergecross73. Notability is established via multiple reliable sources already, as the nom noted in the deletion rationale.... -- ferret (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, as the subject of non-trivial works in reputable and independent sources. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC).
 * Keep. As the subject of several dedicated, reliable articles, this topic meets the GNG. If no further sources arise and a better merge location appears, I'd entertain that, but there certainly isn't ample reason for deletion in its current state. And if it helps, when I think of whether a seemingly inane VG article will survive an AfD, I compare it to Microshaft Winblows 98. Eye close font awesome.svg czar  ♔  22:58, 1 March 2014 (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.