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.
Delete - Unnecessary spin out. Most if not all content would fail
WP:GAMECRUFT or not be able to be reliably sourced. Anything else (if there's anything at all) can just be put in the parent article.
Sergecross73msg me17:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete - this is not Gamespot or IGN.. per
WP:NOTGUIDE WP is not a depository of game guides. There are a lot of websites where this information can be found, but WP is not one. Being unsourced and unlikely to have RS is another issue, but even if NYT wrote an article on it, NOTGUIDE is controlling.
‡ El cid, el campeadortalk18:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Fancruft. While there is an argument that the backwards long jump is notable enough to have its own page, everything else on the list is not.
Mlb96 (
talk)
05:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. Per
WP:LISTN, one criteria for a list being notable is if it has been discussed as a set by independent, reliable sources. The only source I can find doing so is this
[1], and I am not confident about its reliability.
BilledMammal (
talk)
07:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Theres still multiple glaring issues here, including
WP:GAMECRUFT (material not appropriate for Wikipedia), the fact that there's not enough content to warrant a split off article, and virtually ever source in the article is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards.
Sergecross73msg me13:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. Fair enough, go for it. Just thought I'd give page making a shot. I'll wait until I know more about the rules before trying again. Comment added by
Mngoblin (
talk
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 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.
Delete - Unnecessary spin out. Most if not all content would fail
WP:GAMECRUFT or not be able to be reliably sourced. Anything else (if there's anything at all) can just be put in the parent article.
Sergecross73msg me17:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete - this is not Gamespot or IGN.. per
WP:NOTGUIDE WP is not a depository of game guides. There are a lot of websites where this information can be found, but WP is not one. Being unsourced and unlikely to have RS is another issue, but even if NYT wrote an article on it, NOTGUIDE is controlling.
‡ El cid, el campeadortalk18:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Fancruft. While there is an argument that the backwards long jump is notable enough to have its own page, everything else on the list is not.
Mlb96 (
talk)
05:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. Per
WP:LISTN, one criteria for a list being notable is if it has been discussed as a set by independent, reliable sources. The only source I can find doing so is this
[1], and I am not confident about its reliability.
BilledMammal (
talk)
07:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Theres still multiple glaring issues here, including
WP:GAMECRUFT (material not appropriate for Wikipedia), the fact that there's not enough content to warrant a split off article, and virtually ever source in the article is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards.
Sergecross73msg me13:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. Fair enough, go for it. Just thought I'd give page making a shot. I'll wait until I know more about the rules before trying again. Comment added by
Mngoblin (
talk
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.