Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uber Catacomb Snatch


 * 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   redirect to Catacomb_Snatch. The subject does not meet WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Uber Catacomb Snatch

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested PROD and PROD2. Non-notable derivative game from Catacomb Snatch; no reliable, secondary sources found to satisfy WP:GNG. Appears to be WP:PROMO. All the existing references are for Catacomb Snatch or Mojam bundle. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Alter to Redirect due to these 2 sources one of which is established as reliable. They are essentially saying the same thing and included in Catacomb_Snatch already. However the coverage is minimal and essentially gamecruft with barely any critical reception, not something I would consider WP:GNG worthy. —  HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - It this page is only information about something that exists as Wikipedia is aimed at being the encyclopedic of all things I do not see why HELL KNOWZ is so instant that it should be deleted.

- References - — This unsigned message is brought to you by Eforen (talk • contribs) 00:10, February 21, 2012‎ (UTC) — Eforen (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * http://www.reddit.com/r/IndieGaming/comments/pxyxr/uber_catacomb_snatch_a_project_to_fix_bugs_and/
 * http://catacombsnatchmojang.wikia.com/wiki/Uber_Catacomb_Snatch
 * http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=35307101&postcount=448
 * http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/1041302-catacomb-snatch-acts-extremely-slow-in-multiplayer/
 * http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/1041011-catacomb-snatch-wtf/
 * http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/1042653-catacomb-snatch-fork/
 * https://www.facebook.com/ubercs
 * As I said in the rationale "no reliable, secondary sources found to satisfy WP:GNG", which is the core deciding factor whether a subject/topic is classified as "notable" or not in Wikipedia terms. I just happened to be the one who stumbled upon the article. None of the sources above are reliable as already pointed out. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - None of the above sources qualify as reliable sources. They all fail WP:SPS. Sergecross73   msg me   02:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Couldn't find enough reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG. I found one source, Gameswelt, that looked like it might be reliable, but I can't read German, and am not personally familiar with the site, so I can't be sure. Either way, that one article wouldn't be enough. Whoops, that's in reference to to the original Catacomb Snatch as well. Okay, back to zero reliable sources then. Sergecross73   msg me   02:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - What defines reliable sources? by this I mean what websites for example would you see as a reliable source? Most stuff in the game development community is word of mouth and so is mostly forums — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eforen (talk • contribs) 03:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - What defines reliable sources?
 * You can click that link and read all about it. Basically, it has to have editorial oversight, proven previous reliability from the publisher and the author, and unbiased viewpoint. Obviously both the author and the publisher have to be identifiable. Thus it also cannot be affiliated with the topic's subject (i.e. game's developer). See WP:VG/RS for a list of reliable video gaming sources. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - randominity from readit says - "Thank god this exists. I was really disappointed by the bugs in the game and was hoping that development would continue. Thanks for posting!"


 * Comment - Endzeitkind also from readit says - "I tried to play Catacomb Snatch 3 times now and everytime it crashes. Will try your build tomorrow. Thank you for making this :)"


 * Keep - so as you can see its a good thing that people want. I do not see why it should be deleted. See http://www.reddit.com/r/IndieGaming/comments/pxyxr/uber_catacomb_snatch_a_project_to_fix_bugs_and/ — Eforen (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete - unremarkable game mod. Not even sure the original game is notable, but that's a different argument for another time. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - It was remarkable enough for Rock, Paper, Shotgun (WP:VG/RS) to write about it. They are in defined as a reliable source http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/02/22/ubering-catacomb-snatch/
 * It is reliable, but it's no significant coverage. It says the same thing IndieGameMag one does and WP:GNG requires significant coverage. I've already explained that below. But let's see if more sources cover the mod extensively. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Would this be considered to qualify as a reliable source? http://www.indiegamemag.com/uber-catacomb-snatch-makes-mojangs-mojam-game-better/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eforen (talk • contribs) 16:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about that. IndieGameMag isn't very picky and generally accepts user submitted content and I don't know how much editorial oversight goes over these. Video game WikiProject hasn't listed it as a generally reliable one at WP:VG/RS. A feature at RPS or something would be considered significant. Note that besides "reliable" WP:GNG requires significant coverage from multiple sources, and for video games this usually means at least a review. Although the article is usable for the page, it's not quite critical reception. It's basically a short description of what was added to the original and that's not a very in-depth coverage. How much material in the article can you source with that besides a few sentences? On the other hand, it would be reasonable to mention this under Catacomb Snatch "community" (or similar) section. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect - this article is mostly a copy of the original game's page. This version can be merged under the "Forks" heading. (Note - this isn't exactly notable so it does not need its own article nor should the heading say "Notable forks". - M0rphzone (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: Redirect - Not notable; mostly copy-pasted; violates WP:RS, WP:GNG, WP:GAMECRUFT, WP:TRIVIA. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Neutral My initial impression upon reading the article brought just one possible purpose for keeping and merging with similar articles. "Nostalgia." My argument for nostalgic retention is not particularly a strong one and rather long-winded, so I'll spare you the bulk of it. I grew up with pinball and bowling games where you powder the table and slide the metal disc along trying to hit the right actuators and the pins would flip upwards. Some of them were more popular than others. It caused me to see if there are any policies regarding nostalgic value content, I didn't find any. I did find Wikipedia's original homepage which has been retained by those at the healm for nostalgic purpose. For anyone who is rather young here, you may not have a full appreciation for nostalgic content, but for those thirty-somethings and up, I'm sure you can understand it better the older you get.


 * It would have been nice if someone had the forethought to document some comprehensive information regarding the games I grew up with. Right here and now, we have a chance to do so. The fine line is what content should be retained and what content should not. Unless this has a little current interest, it probably shouldn't be retained. Just to note, I happened across a policy not long ago that said something to the effect that articles were not to be written humorously yet some pages written humously are retained solely for their humorous appeal. Ken Tholke (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how nostalgia can apply to a game mod less than two weeks old. In any case, notability is established by sources (WP:GNG) and vary rarely by other criteria. Pages are not retained for nostalgia, humor, or any other personal reasons. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't agree but won't elaborate much as it is off topic. Wikipedia's Department of Fun, The End of Wikipedia, Silly Things, etc. It seems (as ignorant of this organization as I am) they are being retained for personal, humorous and historic appeal. A failed WikiHoliday proposal that is still open to revival (it seems, I'm not positive) makes mention of "viewing the Nostalgia section" as one of the things Wikipedians should do on that day. I'm finding quite a number of initiatives outside the scope of "encyclopedic" which Jimmy Wales seems to have sanctioned. I was just trying to think outside-the-box about it in the spirit of things, that's all. I didn't realize it was just released less than 2 weeks ago. Thanks! Ken Tholke (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * All your examples are not in article space and very different guidelines apply to keeping them. Show us a single non-notable article kept solely for humor/nostalgia/personal appeal (and it will get a quick AfD). But this is indeed off topic. This is in article space and topic notability, that is WP:GNG, is the primary criteria, which we should be discussing. —  HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:22, 28 February 2012 (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.