Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woody Pop


 * 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. Good debate, but it seems the rough consensus is to keep. (non-admin closure) —JmaJeremy  ✆  ✎  04:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Woody Pop

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Old Sega game which does not seem to meet WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG. Currently sourced with unreliable and/or tertiary sources only. Nothing particularly significant about it (vis-a-vis NSOFT). Google and GNews yield no notable sources at first glance, GScholar yields a few trivial mentions in game guides. BenTels (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Unless you look through magazine archives you're unlikely to find relevant sources for 20 year old console games on the web. Like virtually all official and mainstream console releases of the period this will have been reviewed in numerous multi-format and sega-focused magazines. The Amiga Magazine Rack, despite being dedicated to an entirely different system, does confirm the existence of two such reviews, one of which is viewable online. Here's another magazine scan I just found. Those are just the ones that quickly came up. Three reviews should cover notability, though there's no way on earth that those represent the only reviews out there, newsagent shelves were bursting with game magazines at that point (they still are to a lesser extent). Someoneanother 22:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Not trying to be offensive or anything... but I'm not exactly sure those reviews amount to in-depth coverage. Moreover, if and when you read those reviews, they both confirm that this game is just a clone of Breakout and therefore seem to contradict the idea of its notability. -- BenTels (talk) 08:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether they count as in-depth coverage or not is for you to decide, but whether the game is a Breakout clone or a 'how many Cadbury Fingers can I fit in a goose' simulator has no bearing on notability. Notability is secondary coverage, not importance or originality. I did read the reviews, but I didn't need them to tell me what it was, as soon as I saw the name appear on the AFD list a picture of the game's cover appeared in my mind's eye, comes from more than 2 decades of gaming. Again, looking at the two reviews which have randomly been uploaded does not indicate the level of coverage available, games costing £30-£60 (when a pound was worth something) did not pass by without the gaggle of gaming magazines then in print reviewing them. Trust me. Someoneanother 12:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * One further thought regarding the need for in-depth coverage, per WP:GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Also per WP:NRVE "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation." We have 3 reviews, each is beyond a trivial mention, to me that's enough irrespective of any further reviews which will be locked in magazines. Someoneanother 13:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I disagree with you that being a clone is not relevant. The criterion for inclusion is not coverage, it is notability (i.e. "worthiness of notice"). Coverage in secondary sources (i.e. the WP:GNG) is a tool that creates the presumption but not the guarantee of notability based on the number of available sources. In this case the contents of the sources you have cited are, in my estimation, saying that the game is not notable, since it is simply a clone of another game. At best I would say this game could be mentioned in the Breakout (video game) article as a clone, but I do not see enough notability to warrant an article of its own. -- BenTels (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at your point about clones again, I see why that term in particular could be a deal-breaker, but I think you need to take on board that in video gaming terminology 'clone' has two meanings. In the (good?) old days there were literal clones, games reverse-engineered or just built from the ground-up to resemble the original as much as possible. Pac-Man, Donkey Kong, Asteroids and Space Invaders were all heavily cloned, for instance. The other type of clone is one in which the game has obviously been inspired by an earlier title, which applies to the vast majority of games which borrow aspects of earlier games or share near-identical gameplay but have different graphics/plots. Because video games are primarily grouped by gameplay style rather than plot or setting (as in most mediums), it makes these comparisons much easier to make. The sub-genre for this style of game is actually called Breakout clone here on WP, so even though 'clone' can be used in a negative way it is also used to define genres of games, as it is in both of the viewable reviews. Someoneanother 11:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as per the nomination. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Care to expand? It's not a vote, and there are a lot of concerns with the nomination and the nominator's rationale...  Sergecross73   msg me   23:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Someoneanother's arguments. Clone or not, it's an officially released game for the Sega Genesis, it had coverage in print media back in the day. The article's in terrible shape, but what matters is that coverage is out there, not the article's particular current state. Sergecross73   msg me   20:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article's shape is not at issue, the notability of the game is. And available sources so far either do not establish or simply contradict notability. -- BenTels (talk) 06:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, for starters, can you explain to me why you don't accept the review from a hard-copy magazine show by the scan above? A published magazine that does a review dedicated specifically toward reviewing a single game just about always counts toward the GNG. Sergecross73   msg me   16:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I do accept them -- those are the ones whose contents I feel contradict notability of this software. Those sources classify this software as a clone, a copy of something that already exists. That is not notable. Fine for a remark in the article about the cloned software, but not notable enough for an article of its own. And I'm not saying WP:GNG has not been met, I'm saying that in this case it doesn't help. -- BenTels (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your understanding of the GNG is not quite right. What establishes notability isn't whether or reliable sources call it original or a clone. It's whether or not it covers it in significant detail. It doesn't matter what the magazine's feelings are on the game, it's the fact that they decided to cover the game, and feature detailed reviews dedicated to the subject. Nothing you said in the comment above trumps the fact that it was covered in detail by magazines around the time of it's release. Sergecross73   msg me   23:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the mere act of a source calling something a clone means that the topic is not notable. If this game was briefly mentioned in an article about breakout and only mentioned that the game was a clone there may be a case but I do believe that a subject becomes notable if it is reviewed by reliable sources even if those sources mention that the game is a clone.--70.49.81.140 (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Being worthy of notice is established by looking at whether coverage in reliable sources exist, and not by the opinions of editors. Coverage of games from that era are very likely to be offline, but the sourcing above provides evidence of coverage and there is likely more if one were to dig through paper (or possibly microfiche). -- Whpq (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What you are saying in the first line is incorrect, as WP:GNG does not establish notability -- read point 4 about the meaning of presumed. The offline sources you refer to (cited above) show the presumption of GNG to be incorrect in this case. -- BenTels (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not idea what you are trying to articulate in your argument. Barring other issues, coverage in reliable sources does establish notability.  There are other guidelines which we take into consideration that counteract this such as WP:NOT (especially not news), and WP:BLP1E, but none of these apply in this case.  I see no guideline or policy that indicates that works derived from others cannot be notable.  I'll also point out that the game is not a straight copy.  I'll also point out that we have separate articles for Breakout and Arkanoid. -- Whpq (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - As per Someoneanother's research. Disagree with BenTels' personal notability criteria. - hahnch e n 17:28, 27 August 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.