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 no consensus. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frozen: Olaf's Quest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not reach GNG, 60% of the article is a write-down of a review, which also is the only source in the article. The other 40% are the three lead sentences, which are all unsourced. Lordtobi (✉) 14:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:GNG. See articles: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. [12] [13] --Odie5533 (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Nomination is more of a merger argument and largely not a deletion rationale. While I'm unfamiliar with some of Odie's sources above, NintendoLife, GameRevolution, and MCVUK are all reliable sources per WP:VG/S, and the latter source can confirm that the game was actually an unexpected success story, which helps with both notability and adding more potential content for the article. Sergecross73 msg me 15:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  HardcoreGamer is on VG/S as well (used to be a magazine), and I've created a discussion for NowGamer. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's true - I missed seeing that one, or I would have mentioned that one too. There's probably a good case for nowgamer too. Sergecross73 msg me 17:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. But really, it would be best covered in Frozen_(franchise)#Video_games just like the other Frozen game and split out summary style... Standard procedure for movie tie-in games, which tend to have pitiful games press coverage and are more important as a facet of the film/franchise than as independent entities. A handful of decent sources above, but everyone who has participated already knows that the majority of them are unreliable. The lack of full reviews should be the tell. Everything that needs to be said on this topic can fit adequately and within due weight in the parent section. Would have been worth redirecting before coming to AfD. czar 17:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The same could literally be said about any game that has its own series/franchise article. The fact of the matter is, there's 4-5 third party sources that cover it in significant detail. That's all that's really required. It's also of note that it was made part of the Nintendo Selects line and and received coverage for that as well, which is noteworthy, as it represents meeting a sales milestone of sorts. (Not sure what it is exactly, but I believe we're usually talking hundreds of thousands or millions of copies sold here.) The lack of dedicated reviews (not a requirement to meet GNG anyways) is more representative of the game's demographic than its notability. (Why would your typical IGN/Eurogamer do a write up on this? The core video game demographic isn't going to buy this, and the core pre-teen Frozen demographic don't need a review to know they'll eat up this stuff.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If not Eurogamer/IGN, then why not even newspaper reviews or parents' publications? The point is that the release is minor. When a video game product has some news listings but not reviews, it's usually a sign that there isn't much to say it about it. No, reviews are not required for the GNG, but the GNG does not mean that articles need their own page (it's presumed notability). I don't see how this isn't best handled in its dedicated parent section, especially looking at the lack of information we'd have to write a full treatment of the topic. czar 07:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Also of note of the games sales - being made part of the Nintendo Selects line indicates hundreds of thousands of copies sold at least, which it received coverage for, and its DS version received additional coverage for it's high sales for the platform in 2014, which included hitting at least #31 in the UK charts. Sergecross73 msg me 17:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Frozen (franchise)#Video games as it's clear there's no substance for current independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Care to address any of the points about sources or sales? Or are you sticking with this generic rambling WP:NOTNOTABLE violation? Sergecross73 msg me 18:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions 1/ about sources The review sources listed in an a earlier response are apparently mostly sites devoted specifically to reviewing Nintendo games. Do they review every commercial game released for Nintendo? Do the review every such game based on a commercial film or franchise?

2/about ratings I see an assertion in one or two of the references that the game is a bestseller . I see no specific numerical or other quantitative information. The mere assertion "best-seller" isa meaningless superlative. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. No, they don't review every game, or we'd never delete any Nintendo-platform articles, which is far from the case.
2. Upon my spot checking, most Nintendo Selects are million sellers, but I can't find anything that says they necarrily have to be. But we do have third party sources verifying the game charting (unusual in this day and age for licensed properties on dedicated systems) and that it was an unexpected success. Sergecross73 msg me 19:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep The article in its current form is very poor. The sources above establish its notability, but it may have to be re-written. Dimadick (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I do agree that it needs a rewrite. But with the sources presented, it could definitely be expanded out of stub status. Sergecross73 msg me 15:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my original nom: Article does not establish notability and does not pass WP:GNG. Only a few proper sources, apart from reviews, could be found, failing WP:SIGCOV. Lordtobi (✉) 21:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I think usually the nominator does not also vote. --Odie5533 (talk)

  I wanted to re-iterate my statement as the discussion was relisted. Sorry if that was wrong. Lordtobi (✉) 10:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I've struck the bolded !vote. You're free to reiterate yourself, but the bolded "delete" would only belong in your nomination, if you feel the need to put it somewhere. Putting it down here makes it look like a person separate from the nominator has given an additional "delete" !vote. Sergecross73 msg me 15:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm also puzzled by your comment. Why does "only a few proper sources apart from reviews" somehow make it "failing SIGCOV"? We've got 5+ sources dedicated to the subject at least now - 2 reviews, (GameRevolution, NintendoLife) 2 articles written around its sales accomplishments (HardcoreGamer, NintendoLife), and the MCUK source. Desiring a merge is a subjective editorial call, but I'm having a hard time understanding your objective evaluation of the sourcing in particular here. Sergecross73 msg me 15:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.