Talk:What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Jackpot World (1 participant)
Bejeweled Stars (5 participants)
Melee (game terminology) (5 participants)
Godzilla: Monster of Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Crazy Bus (13 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Sources

I think the interview featuring Michael Berlyn makes a good source. When it comes to getting information regarding the origins of a work, there is no better person to ask than the creator. We can't get good details by asking someone else. 208.54.4.230 (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a primary source - a first party source. A fine source for citing details, sure, but it doesn't count towards the WP:GNG, which requires third party accounts. Also, a stand alone article should usually have 4-5 sources at a minimum, and shouldn't be 75% rambling plot summary. Sergecross73 msg me 04:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The size of the plot section shouldn't surprise anyone as the cartoon is over 20 minutes long. Besides plot, the article contains a bit of things like production and reception. Aside from the interview, the article has links to BCDB. BCDB is a website that contains information of various animated media. 172.56.16.136 (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:INU. In short, this is an encyclopedia, not some plot-summary website. Plots should be concise, and a very small percentage of the article. I mean, look at something like Star Wars: The Force Awakens. It's got a run-time of 135 minutes, and has almost the same length of a plot summary as this 24 minute Bubsy cartoon. (See here for reference.) Also, you can see its just a small percentage of other aspects - development info, reception, etc. The Bubsy pilot article is not an encyclopedic article in any of the forms its been presented in so far - the plot is far too detailed, and far too long in respect to the rest of the article.
The WP:GNG requires third party reliable sources to cover a subject in significant detail. The database does not cover it in significant detail, (databases usually don't) and doesn't look to be what Wikipedia deems reliable anyways. It doesn't appear to be written by a journalist or anyone with any sort of authority on the subject, and quite the opposite, seems to accept submissions from anyone, which would disqualify it from use per WP:USERG. Sergecross73 msg me 15:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With no significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?), this topic should indeed remain a redirect czar 02:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So the idea of wether this one can be an article or not is a matter of sources rather than information? 172.58.25.222 (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right. That's how it works across Wikipedia. And if there are reliable sources but not enough to write a full article on the subject, we try to merge that content somewhere else czar 01:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, though even if it was based on "information", I don't know why you'd think thatd be a reason to keep the article either. This article is lacking in "information" too, it's a rambling plot summary with a few notes from the game's creator (who of which had no role or connection to the pilot itself). Sergecross73 msg me 01:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The information and sources may look insufficient to some viewers. However, this one might qualify as a stub article. 172.58.17.92 (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not without secondary sources, no czar 18:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of IP editors recreating the article, but I'm not seeing any actual policy based argument in favor of restoring the article. Is there more of an argument here or what? Sergecross73 msg me 21:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Documented vs Distinct

Is a subject's notability determined by how much it is documented in the media rather than distinction? Shouldn't the fact that this cartoon is based on a popular video game franchise be notability enough? Notability is sometimes associated with the phrase "worthy of notice." Also, if people who authored those "reliable" sources don't document something, it probably just means they're not interested in the subject, and not that the subject isn't distinct. 172.58.25.102 (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subject's notability is based off of the WP:GNG - that is, if third party, reliable sources are covering a subject in significant detail. Please read WP:NOTINHERITED - it's not based on the coverage of related items, but only of the subject itself. So basically, no, the notability of the game series, or individual games, doesn't not help to establish the notability of the one episode cartoon. Sergecross73 msg me 15:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]