Talk:Chubby Cherub

Untitled

Utterly failes WP:SOFTWARE. As a "bad" video game, it has little or no user base, is not a core product, and hasn't been the subject of multiple non-trivial publications. Etc. This article serves as a great example of of WP:NOT Rklawton 05:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's my rebuttal:

1. http://www.seanbaby.com/nes/w20-15.htm = Seanbaby's rant is one "outside of the company" source
2. http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/nes/review/587187.html = Gamefaqs
3. And, by the way, Seanbaby has a Wikipedia article - Of course Gamefaqs does too.
4. Also see the various links here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Chubby+Cherub%22&btnG=Google+Search
5. Also see: http://cheats.ign.com/objects/779/779455.html

This game, in fact, has been the subject of several NOTABLE publications.

WhisperToMe 05:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• GameFaqs: trivial includes all games - including user-submitted reviews. Rklawton 14:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• IGN: trivial includes all games without descrimination. A two sentence mention only serves to introduce a brief description of the game. While this helps confirm the game's existence, it does nothing to promote the idea of its notability. Rklawton 14:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Seanbaby: Makes my point that this is a terrible game and not worthy of an article. Rklawton 14:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• The fact that another bad article exists has never been an accepted justification for keeping a bad article. Rklawton 14:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me where games are defined as "trivial" :) As defined by WP: Software, trivial is...

• "Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report version releases without comment (IGN has two sentences of comments), price listings in product catalogues or listings on software download sites."

Also not considered to be non-trivial sources are:

• "Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the author or manufacturer talks about the software, and advertising for the software. Newspaper stories that do not credit a reporter or a news service and simply present company news in an uncritical or positive way may be treated as press releases unless there is evidence to the contrary."

Chubby Cherub is here to stay, like it or not. WhisperToMe 15:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The "here to stay" statement above fails to live up to the spirit of collegial discussion. If I do not receive a satisfactory response, I will place this article to AfD. Rklawton 15:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, 1. Every game featured on IGN/Gamefaqs is non-trivial. GASP? How could that be? See, Wikipedia has information on all officially-produced, Nintendo/Sega/Sony seal-of-quality games and a few non-licensed games too. You seem to be missing this very fact. As a publication, IGN/Gamefaqs is inherently notable. Full stop. Rklawton, any AFD of this will fail. WhisperToMe 16:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be a good point except that you have presented nothing to demonstrate your case. Why should everything IGN publishes be notable? IGN makes a point of being comprehensive. This comprehensiveness is the very antithesis of WP:NOT. IGN merely satisfies WP:V. Thus, mere inclusion is nothing at all special. Contrast this with something like the National Register of Historic Places, which makes every attempt to be exclusive, and you'll see what I mean. Rklawton 20:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell: every single published/official/Nintendo seal of quality game is indeed notable and Wikipedia-safe. See, the point is that WP:Software is meant to be a safeguard, of sorts. Let's look up Somari (an unlicensed Chinese ripoff of Sonic the Hedgehog) on IGN... WHAT? NO SOMARI?!?!?!?!? - See, Lawton, IGN has limits. Only a few unlicensed titles (i.e. Action 52) are seen on IGN - Only a few are seen. See, WP:Software is meant to prevent advertisers who are trying to hawk their newly-created products and fan-games made by some 13-year old kid trying to promote himself, not an old video game that is seldom talked-about but published by a major company (Bandai, in this case). Lawton, go on #wikipedia on irc.freenode.net - And show this article to the people on the channel. Ask them if you think it's notable. WhisperToMe 05:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Crappy games aren't notable no matter who made the mistake of officially licensing it, and not everything Nintendo places it's seal on walks on water. Indeed, you have ZERO sources that actually say this is a notable game - and ONE source that says it was a crappy one. The game has won no awards, it isn't included in any tournaments, and I see no sources that even say any copies were actually ever sold. You need sources that highlight its notability. The IGN "mention" is only two sentences long. That's pathetic, and it certainly isnt' encyclopedic. Rklawton 05:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

On second pass, it's clear that IGN has no guide, FAQ, review, news cheats, features, or previews of this game. It's got nothing, zip, zilch, and nada - except two sentences mentioning the changes made to Americanize this version. Is this something you really want to be seen defending as notable? Rklawton 05:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Even if IGN doesn't, Gamefaqs covers for that... an FAQ (at http://db.gamefaqs.com/console/nes/file/chubby_cherub.txt) and one review (at http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/nes/review/R8728.html). And I am perfectly fine with writing articles about games that are generally considered to be poor in quality. Let's look at Action 52. It's a total piece of hooey... and I love it for that! Of course, I didn't pay 200 bucks for it - I paid zero thanks to my good pal emulation! :) WhisperToMe 06:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, Lawton, sources do not have to be "professional" - Well, Seanbaby made it notable partially due to the fact 1. He's a notable guy (in the classic gaming world, which means he is notable period) and 2. He wrote the article slamming Chubby Cherub. That's verifiable and notable, isn't it? WhisperToMe 06:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, Lawton, keep in mind the game came out back in 1986. I.E. there may be more sources in print media - I.E."The Official Nintendo Player's Guide of 1987" as cited by Seanbaby. And I believe Seanbaby is serious, since the quote is italicized, and the guide is real (also see http://www.nesworld.com/bookvido.htm) WhisperToMe 06:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

And Gamespot contains three reviews: http://www.gamespot.com/nes/action/chubbycherub/index.html WhisperToMe 06:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Gamespot hosts user reviews - which means nothing to Wikipedia. The fact that these reviews all point to the game's non-notability serves as a point in favor of deleting the article. Rklawton 17:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Rklawton, re-read WP:Software. It has its own definition of what is trivial. Guess what? The Gamespot reviews are considered non-trivial according to the guideline. My point: Chubby Cherub, therefore, is notable. WhisperToMe 20:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's review over WP:SOFTWARE. It was in a Nintendo game guide and in Seanbaby's list, so it meets the first criterion (user guide and subject of non-trivial work). Depending on the definition of the word "core", the game may or may not meet the criteria at the bottom of the page. However, since it does clearly meet the first criterion (you must also take into account that this game is 20 years old, and probably won't have many Internet sources), there should be no real debate about its notability. Nishkid64 20:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't the' subject of Seanbaby's "worst 15" list. It was one of fifteen games listed for being terrible. It's not like someone (or anyone) wrote an entire article with this game as its subject. Thefore, it hasn't been "the subject of..." anything. Mere mention does not qualify something as notable. If it did, we'd have articles on every (other) piece of software that received a negative review, and that runs contrary to the whole point behind WP:SOFTWARE. Think about it this way: how are you doing to look defending this low-quality game in an AfD? Rklawton 21:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Still, Seanbaby had a lot to say, didn't he? That's enough to meet the first criterion of WP:Sofware. WhisperToMe 22:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It's still not the subject - but one of several, and altogether not a lot either. But that will be for the closing admin to decide. You, on the other hand, will be stuck defending a game that by all accounts was terrible. Rklawton 01:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The game is the subject of a page within the list of worst games. And the game is a subject. And, Wikipedia's job is to describe the game, not to praise it. I think this article does an okay job of describing the game, adding that good ol' Seanbaby hates the game with a passion. WhisperToMe 23:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)