Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spider Solitaire (Windows)


 * 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. ; if users wish to keep discussing the possibility of merging them all, it can be done on the talk page. :) · Salvidrim!  ·  &#9993;  12:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Spider Solitaire (Windows)

 * – ( 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) 21:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.   czar   &middot;   &middot;  21:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  21:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  21:56, 29 June 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 23:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Those are precedents - this article satisfies WP:N individually as well. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I can see this one. Needs much better sourcing for me to say it actually does, though. Ansh666 02:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can understand the reasons to keep on FreeCell (a form of solitare that was popularized on Windows) and the other Solitare (the bouncy-card animation its claim to fame), but there is nothing here to suggest that the shipped Spider Solitare in Windows is notable on its own, and the arguments applied before do not apply. 90% of this article fails WP:NOT, and what's left is not enough for any reasonable article. I am not aware of any appropriate merge target for this, but there may be one, and if such exists, merge + redirect makes sense. But right now, deletion makes the most sense. --M ASEM  (t) 22:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per Masem - I was going to link to WP:NOT too. Ansh666 23:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - improved (this counts as a RS). Ansh666 17:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Nothing GAMEGUIDEish about this article can't be solved through regular editing (i.e., deleting the offending text to pare down the article), and as such WP:ATD expects that before deletion is considered. Even so, as a Windows component, the article can clearly be merged into Windows 98 if the RSes are deemed insufficient. Jclemens (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: Shouldn't all software (games, programs, etc.) have their own pages? Therefore, this page should still exist. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that's not a metric used on Wikipedia. Notable games or software programs that meet WP:N get pages. --M ASEM (t) 06:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:NOTTEMPORARY cannot be a reason for deletion. It says that, once a topic has received enough coverage to be classed as notable, it doesn't need continued coverage to maintain that notability. (So, for example, a book that was widely reviewed in the 1970s doens't become non-notable just because nobody's said much about it in the last 30 years.) Dricherby (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, actually it's a good reason, because the fact that the Macintosh is a very notable computer does not make the game notable, and we wouldn't we need ongoing coverage of a Macintosh Windows computer by making articles of computer games bundled with the computer. It's still a non-notable topic. EditorE (talk) 12:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The concept that notability of MS Windows (This has nothing to do with Macintosh) doesn't make bundled software notable is WP:NOTINHERITED. Seriously, WP:NOTTEMPORARY has nothing to do with it. Dricherby (talk) 12:47, 3 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? Most content (high score, Highest Scores, Winning Strategies and for getting a high score) look all pretty much GAMEGUIDE to me, and there's very little other content that is present here. EditorE (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I deleted a large amount of original research (maximum possible scores, probability distributions) and game guide (strategies for winning and getting high scores) from the article. Dricherby (talk) 12:53, 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

 PAGE''' ]] ) 23:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Evidently not a hoax, would be unfair to remove hard work that has gone into genuine proven article. The Big Hoof! (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't say it was a hoax. I said the game was not notable enough to have it's own article. EditorE (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge all of them!- Look, obviously each individual MSF game up for deletion is not notable on its own. On the other hand, combined, they seem to be notable to be included. So, how about we merge all of them into one article? As they stand right now, they are generally devoid of much meaningful content. Cheers, &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 23:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. A quick Google books search shows lots of books that specifically discuss this program, and the descriptions go beyond the sort of "this thing also exists" coverage that is often targeted by WP:NOTINHERITED. I added one such source to the article (a game design book). While this might classify me as a minor contributor to the article, my edits came about after finding this discussion and researching notability, and I have no vested interest in this article. --Ahecht ( [[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK
 * Strong Keep There is a single line in the article, which established WP notability - As of 2005, it was the most played game on Windows PCs, surpassing the shorter and less challenging Klondike-based Windows Solitaire -  scope_creep (talk) 02:01, 08 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That needs to be sourced to establish WP:N; such a source would take away any doubt about notability. Ansh666 01:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * True, but I don't doubt that it's true. For millions these two games combined were the first experience of computer gaming, back in day. Everybody I knew who used Windows played them, and being in computing, it was a lot. scope_creep (talk) 10:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if we had a reliable source that states that, that'll be great. EditorE (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Some, if not all, of you seem to have not actually read the article - a reliable source is already present as a reference for that very line! Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless this was covered under an SNG (which video games are not), a single fact is not sufficient for notability. We need "significant coverage" which means multiple sources and more in-depth coverage. Its a nice fact to include in the merge to a article about installed games with Windows, but not enough to support a standalone. --M ASEM (t) 00:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable per WP:GNG: the article is referenced to multiple RS covering the subject. Also it is simply insane that a piece of software included by default in the most popular operating system can be deemed "unnotable" per our house rules. Here we're in safe WP:GNG territory, but I wonder if whoever does these nominations asks her/himself what benefit such a deletion would give the readers. If our rules make things worse for the encyclopedia and its usefulness, it is time to ignore them (and then fix them). --  cyclopia  speak!  15:27, 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)
 * Popularity is not equal to notability. Covering the article in a larger topic on installed game would be more appropriate to maintain the verified information instead of a weakly sourced standalone article. --M ASEM (t) 00:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge I'm beginning to sound like a broken record, but I think another merge is in order here. I agree with that move per Aua  LazyBastard Guy  19:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment We need to look at this carefully. M ASEM has stated that popularity is not equal to notability, which needs to be examined carefully, since it only work's when the numbers in the particular grouping, concept etc are small. Windows 98 sold between 600-700 million copies which equates to about 6-8% of the population of the planet. I think the majority of people who bought a Windows 98 PC and later systems played this game. So the question is - What is the granularity of notability? When does something that is popular become notable? Is the 1000 folks, 5000 folk, 100k, 500k. I think that any game, concept, idea, physical item that is used by that number of folk is notable.  As regards the sources, I think they are perfectly sound. scope_creep (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless the topic falls under a subject-specific notability guideline (which video game/computer software doesn't), notability is only demonstrated by coverage in secondary sources. Something that is "popular" but never described in sources will never make for a proper WP article. Of the sources:
 * about.com is normally not reliable (it is just inside the definition of an SPS). Even given that, the source has *5* sentences about Spider Software, and only how to play the game. Definitely not secondary.
 * the book Trefry may appear to be good, but what parts of the chapter that are visible on google books shows that it is basically discussing the differences in the general solitare (not computer versions) of Klondike and Spider Solitaire. It may support the popularity fact, but that's it. It's secondary about the solitare game of Spider Solitare, but it really doesn't speak anything directly to the software version.
 * The gamespot has all of four sentence about the game. Definitely not significant and barely secondary.
 * Help files are primary sources, okay for sourcing facts, but not for notability.
 * Microsoft's own page is basically another help page - primary, not secondary.
 * Basically, there's no proper sourcing to demonstrate notability and the need for a standalone article. For all purposes, the only thing that is different from the windows version of the game from the actual solitaire game with cards is the ability to highlight possible moves and the scoring system. All which can be convered in a brief statement about the game in a larger article about installed games shipped with Windows OSes, but far from able to support a standalone article. --M ASEM  (t) 12:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Spider_Solitaire_(Windows) has been viewed 20720 times in the last 90 days. Total number of times its been seen over the years unknown.   D r e a m Focus  13:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And? We don't consider page stats in AFD discussions. --M ASEM (t) 14:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * They shouldn't be an argument for keeping per se, but we should consider them along with other evidence. Again: we're here for readers, not to play a role-playing game with our ruleset. -- cyclopia  speak!  15:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge to Spider solitaire The notability of this program isn't independently notable of the parent game p  b  p  14:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Regarding the nomination statement, this is another case in point in that we need to have nomination statements certified by an experienced editor before involving the community, in an AfD discussion without an argument for deletion.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep As far as wp:notability, this topic is beyond famous, and yes, we can present page stats to explain what some of us consider routinely obvious to editors who may be neither PC users nor game players, that this topic satisfies WP:N as "worthy of notice" before we even start to look at specific guidelines such as WP:GNG.  Of course, WP:V remains a core content policy, and this article has problems in this regard, but the problems with WP:V in this article do not rise to the level of WP:Deletion policy.  Although AfD is not clean-up, I added a few tags which should alert readers to problems in this article, and hopefully will lead to a better-sourced article.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If it is "beyond famous" there should be plenty of sourcing to back that up, right? I've looked and found little beyond blogs and forum posts, and yes, if there was more, I would consider that. It meets WP:V, hence why a merge to a larger article about pre-installed Windows games makes sense, but not a standalone article, which is the metric that WP:N aims to resolve. --M ASEM  (t) 13:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you are trying to get me to comment on WP:GNG notability, but such is not a policy/guideline-based question. wp:notability does not require sources, it did at one time, but that is now six years ago.  It is WP:V that is our core content policy.  If blogs and forum posts are being used to WP:V source the article, then strip them from the article, down to a stub if need be, but this is not a wp:notability issue.  The other point you make regards merge.  Yes, wp:notable topics do not require a standalone article.  But this is an AfD discussion and the wrong forum to discuss merge, and a merge result from AfD is not binding even if we had the discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:V is content policy, and because it meets WP:V, it is a reason to keep the information about the game somewhere on WP, but WP:V doesn't say anything about a stand-alone article or not (short of topics lacking third-party sources). But the requirement for a stand-alone article is WP:N. (And it is important that while I am well aware that AFD is not for merge discussions, it is a valid option to discuss if someone otherwise brought the article to AFD on good faith they believed it should have been deleted, as in this case. I do believe this should be merged, not deleted). Also, again, I've seen that book section in question from Google, and it is little about the software program itself and more about the differences between the two forms of the general solitaire game, with the fact both were pre-installed Windows games a side note. The notability sourcing does not exist to allow a stand-alone article. A separate "List of games installed with Microsoft Windows", sure. --M ASEM  (t) 14:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "...this is a possible case of WP:NOTTEMPORARY" was the initial nomination statement. Is this what you mean by "brought the article to AFD on good faith they believed it should have been deleted"?  Although I think the topic is wp:notable, there is not a lot of sourcing and it isn't going to much matter to the encyclopedia if the topic is merged or where it is merged, and I think this depends mostly on the people willing to do or doing the work.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:41, 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.
 * 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.