Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scoops (video game)

Scoops (video game)

Scoops (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

No offense intended to TWOrantula, who improved the article. But, I don't believe its coverage is sufficient to demonstrate notability. It has 2 brief reviews in reliable sources, and a situational 148Apps review. While also covered in Common Sense Media, this is extremely brief. It lacks the depth of coverage to convincingly argue for importance. I just wanted to get this AfD out of the way before any GA review of the article so that time is not wasted by an editor or reviewer if the article turns out not to be notable.

P.S. NimbleBit would be a potential ATD, but it doesn't demonstrate passing of WP:NCORP. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:52, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related AfD discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:52, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• Weak keep It falls well short of WP:GAN, but seems marginally notable. For the verification element of general notability, the required depth of coverage of a game should be read in context with the complexity of the subject. If the sourcing can verify all details one would need for a simple game whose mechanics are catch falling ice cream using the tilt, it would seem fine where it would not be for an RPG. On whether that sourcing is reliable sourcing of enough pedigree, we have Gamezebo and also Prima Games in The iPhone Apps Book (), and situational sources from AppSpy and 148Apps. This is not comprehensive sourcing, but the nature of the game does not leave so much information about the subject incomplete that it does not justify its existence. VRXCES (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

  I didn't expect this game to have a print review, so admittedly I missed that.

  It still doesn't convince me to withdraw the AfD, since I believe the AppSpy review is very weak. Almost a blurb. I can see the potential for people to go weak keep now, but it's setting the bar incredibly low still. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:44, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  I agree the coverage is light and a strong keep case isn't being put forward by the sources. VRXCES (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  Nice find! Yeah, not much coverage other than reviews. I doubt that other users will say that this is a strong keep. —TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 23:30, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  I just want to point out that the recent February 2026 consensus for 148Apps appears to have been completely ignored by most editors. It is considered unreliable, VG/S and the plugins simply forgot to be updated to reflect that. 11WB 💬 02:23, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  Good catch. I think it's fair to miss it if the main page hasn't reflected it; whilst I maintain my point about the relationship between subject matter complexity and verification, I agree without a second situational source there's substantially very little to anchor notability on and a redirect is the most sound outcome. VRXCES (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  Shall the same be said for Golfinity? —TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 06:05, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  Looks like it has a Pocket Gamer review. Actually. 148Apps and Pocket Gamer are from the same publishing network. I might look into 148 a little more. VRXCES (talk) 06:40, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  This is relevant. I can confirm I've updated VG/S and both plugins to reflect the February consensus for unreliability. My recommendation is to not use the site and stick with Steel Media's other outlets. 11WB 💬 07:22, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks, and I agree with Czar on this - it can be sometimes indicative of a consistent editorial structure or policy but as stated, yes, means nothing in itself. VRXCES (talk) 08:22, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  You may be relieved to hear one look at 148Apps indicates on my end suggests it obviously doesn't cut the mustard: its entire review coverage (!) is from one writer with no other experience. You made the right call. VRXCES (talk) 08:59, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah... I don't remember too much from February, but judging by what I said, i obviously came to the same conclusion as you. 11WB 💬 09:44, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  I should also point out that NRP rarely comments at VG/S, and this was one of the few times they did (along with PL and Piotrus). 11WB 💬 09:46, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Zxcvbnm @Vrxces @11WB What about Lego Juniors Create & Cruise or Lego City My City? I created those and their sourcing isn't too far off from this. Lego Movie Maker is definitely notable though. NewAccount7295 (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  Potentially. I'm not going to nominate them, but you are tempting fate by asking here. 11WB 💬 06:21, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

  Not quite the right forum for it - all I'll say is a game article without a reception section is the first red flag I would look for to investigate notability concerns. VRXCES (talk) 07:08, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Redirect. I agree with VRXCES's points in that the sourcing is not comprehensive but provides just enough significant coverage to support notability. After reading responses, I have now realized the sourcing is not enough to meet the GNG. The content should be merged to the parent NimbleBit article. (Admittedly, I did jump the gun a bit by nominating this article for GA status and have since canceled the nomination. Whoops!) —TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 06:19, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect: This is reaching by quite a lot. This has one example of SIGCOV from Gamezebo, so does not meet GNG. The provided sources consist of little more than paragraphs, which are not enough to base an article on. This can be redirected elsewhere as a known title. 11WB 💬 02:16, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Target for redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

This has been given above already, @Kingsmasher678. NimbleBit. 11WB 💬 22:13, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I only saw one person explicity say where they wanted to see it redirected, @TrademarkedTWOrantula to NimbleBit. Where would you like to seen it redirected? Kingsmasher678 (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

If it isn't stated, it can be assumed they mean the target already given by others or the nominator. 11WB 💬 03:39, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• There is also a review from Dutch website iCulture NewAccount7295 (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

  The main problem is this was only a couple of years after the iCulture site launched, and the review was written by someone who was 17 at the time and I assume a student. It doesn't really scream (no pun intended) "reliable source". But I'd welcome others' opinions about that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:29, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'd say it's a no from me. In 2008 it was iPhoneClub and has little information about its editorial structure other than it was a joint venture of two co-owners with good journalism experience . Given the site had a large forum suggesting community integration with content, given a high school student was able to write for it, there are aspects about how this site worked which are very opaque in 2008 compared to its clearer masthead as iCulture. VRXCES (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

  Definitely not, @NewAccount7295. 11WB 💬 03:40, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

  It was also reviewed in the July 2009 issue of the Children's Technology Review on page 13 (see page 9 of this index ) NewAccount7295 (talk) 01:32, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  Good find in a case of WP:OFFLINE, given this is index-only. The Complete Sourcebook on Children's Interactive Multimedia suggests these reviews could span from a sentence to multiple paragraphs. Wonder what they wrote about it? VRXCES (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

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.