Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winnie the Pooh's Home Run Derby


 * 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. The re-written article passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 08:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Winnie the Pooh's Home Run Derby
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Flash-in-the-pan news coverage that lasted two whole days. I have not been able to find coverage in reliable sources since then. WP:NOTNEWS. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   04:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   04:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   04:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   04:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I've come across reliable sources that dedicate entire articles to the game:
 * 1) http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-01-05-disney-japans-winnie-the-pooh-flash-game-is-is-too-hard-for-children-everyone-else
 * 2) http://kotaku.com/5973249/this-winnie-the-pooh-game-is-way-too-difficult-for-kids
 * 3) https://www.pcgamesn.com/winnie-pooh-home-run-derby-not-suitable-children
 * 4) https://www.dailydot.com/upstream/winnie-the-pooh-home-run-derby-reddit-4chan/
 * 5) https://medium.com/@JustDuncanIt/the-winnie-the-pooh-home-run-derby-experience-e920aa3f8cd8
 * It feels like there's enough to meet the WP:GNG, and I have a hard time applying something like WP:NOTNEWS to a video game. The scope of the article isn't about the event of Neogaf plays Winnie the Pooh Home Run Derby and finds it to be difficult, even if that's what initially spurred the coverage. Its about a game. Sergecross73   msg me  19:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The Medium link is self-published. Is there a reason you included it? Mark Schierbecker (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies, you're right about Medium. I'm not totally familiar with that one. I think I was confusing it for another site. Struck. Sergecross73   msg me  21:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - The last AFD, which closed unanimously as "Keep", also noted that it had received coverage from NBC Sports, which would be pretty high level coverage for this sort of thing. The link is dead now, but it doesn't change that the coverage occurred, (and could maybe be archived and resurrected someday too.) Sergecross73   msg me  19:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Only one reliable signification source (NBC Sports article). Other sources are niche news sources and caspule sized articles at that thus not the world at large required at notability signification in depth. Spshu (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This assessment is incorrect. The consensus at WP:VG/S explicitly lists Kotaku and Eurogamer as reliable sources, and PCGamesN and Daily Dot are frequently used at AFDs to prove notability. As its article suggests, PCGamesN has many editorial staff from past reliable source print magazines as well. I will concede I'm unfamiliar with "Medium" though, I'm open to input on whether or not that should be used. But we've got enough sources to keep even with throwing that one out. Sergecross73   msg me  20:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This assessment is spot on. While Kotaku, Eurogamer, PCGamesN and Daily Dot may be reliable sources, they do not meet notability source level ("...those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time...") as they are niche news, ie. cover gaming thus are not the "world at large". Also, some of the articles are short thus don't meet the significant coverage in length, just like a encapsulate review doesn't meet notability requirements. Spshu (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but no. One of the main purposes of WP:VG/S is for determining notability of video games. You're free to disagree, but your personal assessment is trumped by long-standing consensus at the WikiProject level. Sergecross73   msg me  21:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * NO, the purpose of WP:VG/S is determining if a source is reliable not determining notability, those are determined here at AfD. WP:N is a WP wide consensus which trumps a wikiproject consensus (unless deferred to). Spshu (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, are you telling me the purpose of what I've been maintaining for the last 5-7 years? Not sure how you feel you're more qualified to define a project you haven't been involved in, (or flippantly contradict my last 5-7 years of AFD votes that have largely been based around WP:VG/S and have matched consensus) but you are wrong. Feel free to question the WikiProject on it. Yes, obviously every article at AFD is evaluated on an individual basis, but one of the main points of WP:VG/S is determining whether or not websites are reliable, and usable in determining notability. Websites like Eurogamer and Kotaku have a consensus and precedent for being sources that help meet the GNG. Sergecross73   msg me  23:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: please consider whether a !vote was placed before or after Sergecross73's rewrite when evaluating. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * keep sources meet the GNG. If someone wants to challenge the list of reliable sources for video games, feel free to open an RfC.  But that's where we are and I think it reasonable. Hobit (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've completely rewritten the entire article according to the reliable sources above, in addition to a few others I found in the process. Please look it over prior to giving your !vote, as its an entirely different article from when it was nominated. Its certainly not perfect - it was a quick and dirty type thing considering time's a factor at AFD - but it shows it was possible to expand it out of stub status, make it more encyclopedic in tone, and meet the GNG. Sergecross73   msg me  20:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep thanks to the great job Sergecross73 did rewriting the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sergecross73 and Guy Macon. Lepricavark (talk) 22:04, 2 May 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.