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 delete. – Joe (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons: Tapped Out - Themed Updates[edit]

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

Creating a new page for deleted content is not acceptable. The page creator has stated that the history of the game is useful for long-term players, but this is not a fan site and I do not believe that the updates to this game meet our standards for notability. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gab) 11:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unilaterally deleting content without discussion which has been built up on this page over 4 years is unacceptable.
Taking the argument about not being a fan site to its logical conclusion would mean that only a bare minimum of information should be provided for any topic eg TV series, and any information about individual episodes, should be deleted for all such topics. I don't find this acceptable in either case. JohnI (talk) 12:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have some guidelines and policies you should probably read, including WP:VGSCOPE and the general notability guideline. While I think this material might (that's a caution "might") be okay for the article on the video game, it should be sourced to independent, secondary, reliable sources. Do you have such? It is almost-certainly not appropriate for its own article regardless. --Izno (talk) 13:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 08:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 08:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This kind of info belongs on Wikia rather than Wikipedia. I don't see how this compares with, say, a plot summary of the work in question. It's entirely just cruft that is solely relevant to fans or players._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it violates NOTDIR. Routine updates sometimes receive coverage in RS sufficient to indicate inclusion in the article on the video game itself. --Izno (talk) 13:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's not appropriate to take WP:GAMECRUFT removed from an article, and instead make it its own stand-alone article. We don't usually track every single update to a game, per WP:NOTCHANGELOG (point #4). That's not what encyclopedias do. If one wanted to add a section to the parent article about substantial/notable updates that received coverage by third party sources ( ie your IGNs, Eurogamers, etc. writing article about how good/bad the Halloween 2016 update was.) it could be included in the main article. But listing every update, in a stand-alone article or the game's article, should not happen. Sergecross73 msg me 19:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. This is excessive, unnecessary, and almost entirely unsourced. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:31, 2 December 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.