Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adopt Me! (2nd nomination)

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Adopt Me!}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Adopt Me!}})

While this game has received secondary exposure, there's no real reason why this should be kept as it is a user created game, created on a platform with tons of games made by different people. For example, if a specific level on Super Mario Maker 2 gained secondary coverage, there wouldn't be a real reason to make an article on it just for that reason. An article like this would be more suited for Fandom. An alternative to deleting this would be to either merge it into the current Roblox article, or, if the discussion receives consensus, merge it into a list about popular Roblox games. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

:Also, while Roblox is similar to things like Unity, Roblox has many popular games that have received secondary coverage, however they don't have their own articles. Why should this be any different? Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. The last nomination was about 8 months ago and was closed as "Snow Keep". I don't see that anything has changed since then. There seems to be some jealousy within the community that this particular fan creation has achieved popularity and notability while other titles, perceived as similar, haven't. Emotionally, I guess I can sympathize, but that's not a policy-backed argument for deleting a well-referenced article that clearly demonstrates its notability. ApLundell (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• :That's not really my reason. Why should this be significant enough to warrant its own article, while other Roblox games who have also received enough secondary coverage to warrant their own section in the main Roblox article, don't? I don't really like any of the popular games, however I'm trying not to let that make decisions in discussions about them. I don't really have much jealousy, I'm just confused as to why a game that has probably received about as much secondary coverage as others, gets an article while similar ones dont. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• :I'm attempting to base my reasoning not on my relation to these games but with logic within Wikipedia. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• :It honestly doesn't matter much to me whether or not this article is deleted, I"m just trying to see the logical reasoning in keeping an article that's similar to other topics that are only mentioned in the main subject article. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• Keep / Speedy Keep. No valid rationale for deletion provided by the nom. This is a "IDONTLIKEIT" or a "DOESNTDESERVEIT". Follow-up comment to ApLunde is a "OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST" argument. Notability is judged based on in-depth coverage from reliable sources on this specific topic, not on things like "it's a user made game" (All games are made by "people" incidently) or whether other similar games are also notable or given equal treatment. -- ferret (talk) 19:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• :I was mainly trying to find a reason why this article should be deleted, however I didn't really have the time to go digging through the entirety of Wikipedia to find a policy. It's fine if the article is kept, however maybe it should be moved to the list article if it is created? I don't know, I'm not well enough versed in the policies of Wikipedia to know what would and wouldn't apply here. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• ::Add failure to follow WP:BEFORE as well then. AFD isn't for fishing for a reason to delete. Opening and editing AFDs all note the requirements and guidelines required in an edit notice. -- ferret (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• :::That would be a fault on my part then. (not going to state anymore than this cause it wouldn't really be helpful for those who might view this in the future) Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• :::When I made this I originally thought, "this would be a good idea" however now I see that it wasn't really a good idea. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• :While I do mostly agree with the Keep consensus, an argument that I do agree with from the previous nomination is that there is a specific source the article likes to use. I understand that it isn't a reason for deletion (and the issue has appeared to have gotten better since the last nom), I do think it should be improved, otherwise I think it might get stuck in a cycle of "Delete nom" "nom fails" "new Delete nom after the period of not being able to nom has expired". Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.