Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viking Quest

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 October 20.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 keep. No argument for deletion aside from the nominator. Merging should be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Viking Quest

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

Non-notable fictional television program used sparingly as a minor plot element. All sources are either the episodes themselves or passing mention in articles which focus on the characters/plot or actors in the show, neither of which establish notability for Viking Quest itselt. Also, a minor flash game has been produced by HBO merely to promote the show. This game has not received any significant press which establishes notability either. A google search (web, books, and scholar) turned up nothing which focuses on Viking Quest (again, limited mention in works about the show, characters or actors), so it's doubtful that sources exist anywhere to establish notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Entourage (TV Series). I loves me the Viking Quest but it has no notability outside of that show and isn't even a major plot point within the show's context. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To anyone commenting, be sure to check out the extensive Merge discussion on the talk page. As I read the discussion there, the dissent is really more to do with DoctorFluffy's several attempts to unilaterally delete or redirect the page than any solid arguments against a merge, but I stand to be corrected. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't "unilaterally delete" as I'm not an administrator, so I'm unsure what you mean. Regarding the history here, several months ago, someone else brought up that Viking Quest was non-notable on the talk, I redirected, it was undone, and I expected sources to be added which would demonstrate notability. I forgot about it for a while and, recently, I checked out the article again. Some work had been done, but the sources were still entirely insufficient, so again I redirected and again it was undone. My requests for sources on the talk page were met with wikilawyering, stubbornness, and copypasta policy. I also informed them that a merge could be done easily if they so desired. No sources to establish notability were provided and no merge was done while the interested editor told me repeatedly to "follow policy" for non-notable material, which does indeed indicate AFD after good faith attempts at merging/redirecting, so here we are. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not having a go at you, Doctorfluffy, bringing the article to AfD seems to be to have been appropriate; I'm just saying that the heat on the talk page is directed at you rather than being genuine arguments for retention. - DustFormsWords (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I was just giving a condensed history since the talk page is long and messy. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a section in Entourage - There's actually a lot of content, but I don't think it's enough for a fork. Shows within a show open the door to fancruft articles, even if this page looks good right now. (addition: I'm a regular watcher of the show, which I say only to indicate I have some context about the importance of the show within the show) Shadowjams (talk) 07:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only news [1] I see for it, seems to be brief, and related to the series. Dream Focus 20:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's better referenced than most of the Entourage character articles, including a Variety article about the game. [2] If merged, it should be added to Johnny Drama rather than Entourage. chocolateboy (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that other articles are even more poorly sourced doesn't justify keeping this article. The game is an HBO produced advertisement for the show. The article you link even states that. That article is in no way a useful source for anything either. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't mind that it's an advertisement, but I doubt the game itself is notable enough to give it an article. If you merge it into Johnny Drama there ought to be a {{main|Johnny Drama#Viking Quest}} in the Entourage article and a reference. Shadowjams (talk) 02:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was just pointing out that the game isn't a true "game" in the sense that Viking Quest is so popular that an unassociated development studio wanted to make a full-length game about it and sell it as a major release. Cross medium expansion like that usually indicates a higher degree of notability for the franchise as a whole. This is nothing like that. It's flash game funded by HBO that functions as a lame marketing ploy. It's a big difference that needs to be noted. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the Variety article[3] that Chocolateboy found. "Videogames based on TV shows aren't new, but "Viking Quest" may be the first based on a TV show within a TV show." Sounds like there is something that makes it notable after all. And it is mentioned in plenty of places, usually along with the show though. Dream Focus 02:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the article, it's "promo stunt funded by HBO". It's not an independent game, it's just an extended advertisement to draw clicks on the interwebs. The statement you quote is obviously facetious, clearly not a serious academic claim about the cultural impact of this "game". How you could mistake such a trivial blurb as evidence of notability is beyond me. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Totally not relevant to the debate, but Variety would be totally wrong in that claim in any event: The Itchy & Scratchy Game comes to mind, dating to 1995. More to the point, we're not arguing that Viking Quest isn't notable; we're arguing it's not notable enough to merit a stand-alone page. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check the reply I just made to Shadowjams. I'm not going to retype it here, but it needs to be clear that the game doesn't increase the notability of Viking Quest since it's just a product of HBO marketing. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:27, 13 October 2009 (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.