Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fast and the Furious (2004 video game)

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 merge‎ to Cruis'n (video game). Clear consensus to Merge this article. If you would like to suggest an article rename, please do so on the target article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Fast and the Furious (2004 video game)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG. The 2 references in the article are primary sources. Mika1h (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Mika1h (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm actively working on expanding the article to incorporate a reception section. No valid deletion rationale given. Notability is a property of the article subject, not based on the current state of the article or it's sourcing. oknazevad (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oknazevad: Can you list the sources that indicate notability? There's none in the article. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 23:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on that. The article is under active construction. oknazevad (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cruis'n (video game). Seem to discuss the exact same game, but the Wii version is actually notable. I'm curious what User:Oknazevad means by "no valid deletion rationale". It seems valid enough to me. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion rational is based entirely on the current state of the article. As for the idea of merging, it's a questionable outcome because the assertion that the arcade original (which was a best-selling arcade machine) was not notable while the relatively poorly reviewed port somehow is is begging the question (in the actual meaning of the idiom). Also, the Wii qdaptation is not the only port – the arcade version, complete with the F&F license, and it's first upgrade/sequel have been released as a stand-alone Arcade1Up unit.reviews for that belong in the separate article as well. If anything, I'd say the Wii game should redirect to the original arcade game, because it's the original work. oknazevad (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to re-evaluating once you've provided more reliable sourcing, but this approach to merging would be pretty unheard of with the current level of sourcing for each subject at the moment... Sergecross73 msg me 02:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's reasonable that the combined article bear the title of the original version, which I'd estimate has been far more widely played. F&F arcade machines were pretty ubiquitous in arcades, bowling alleys, movie theatres, entertainment centers, etc. while the Wii game was a largely forgotten port. If they're merged, the far more recognizable title would be the F&F name. oknazevad (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have something more concrete to back that claim, maybe, but I'm not sure "arcades are more prominent than Wii games" checks out when we're talking about the 2004 arcade game market, which is beyond the mainstream prominence of arcades from 1980s/1990s. Not so sure the popularity of mid-2000s arcades so obviously extends beyond the popularity of late 2000s Wii market. Beyond that, this sort of thing is generally decided by levels of third party coverage and WP:COMMONNAME. (Though both options would have a tremendous number of false positives with their generic names, so that could be difficult by traditional means as well.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undoubtedly the Wii, and consoles in general, were more prominent than arcades during the mid-2000s timeframe. But for this game specifically, I'd wager the arcade version was far more played and recognized by the broad populous than the Wii version, as the latter was not a big seller.

The problem, of course, is that since the turn of the millennium (or even a few years before that), the gaming press, both in the news and reviewing sides, has written almost entirely about console and PC games, while arcade games barely get coverage. The reasons for this are many-fold, of course, and beyond really the scope of this discussion, but the short version is that arcade games require little commitment from players; if one is dissatisfied, the game is over quickly and the player is only out the cost of one credit. In many ways arcade games have more in common with amusement park rides than modern home games.

Home games, conversely, require investments of money and time, so players want to get more in-depth coverage. That does skew what sources are available to us when writing articles, leading to an inadvertent bias towards console games. Look at the reception section of the Cruis'n Blast article. It's all about the Switch version, nothing on the reception of the arcade version, let alone the fact that the arcade version has over $100 million in sales of arcade units. And that's just sales of the units by Raw Thrills to arcades, not the money put in the machines to play the game. Arcade games are still a big money industry, and yet we have little about it because sourcing is not easy for it. oknazevad (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that we're entering the fourth day of discussion and all of your arguments are still anecdotal. I know your stance is that "you're working on it" but it was tagged for notability over half a year ago and you were clearly aware of that. And very little has developed since then. Are we really on our way to having enough third party sourcing to support a separate article? And if that answer is "no", then I can't see a Wikipedia-policy backed rationale to merge into this article either. Sergecross73 msg me 14:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern is the title, less the merger. Merger may be the best course of action, but I think the game, even when considered as one game, is best known by the F&F title. The fact that the latest release of it is using that title speaks to that. oknazevad (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A rationale based on the current state of an article isn't "invalid", as "wrong" (missing sources) and "invalid" (inapplicable for Wikipedia) are two totally different things. In this case it seems to be neither, as you have not demonstrated a source as a counterpoint.

You are stating the Wii version was "largely a forgotten port" but if the arcade version was so massively important, surely we'd be seeing modern articles on it? Feels like both were forgotten, but at least the Wii version got a large amount of coverage at the time. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen the recent additions regarding the Arcade1Up release? oknazevad (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me like the Popular Mechanics article's the only actual review there. That's one review of the game, which still doesn't pass GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cruis'n (video game). Even if sourcing is found, they're essentially the same game, and both articles are pretty short. Probably better to just bulk up the development section of the Cruis'n article. Sergecross73 msg me 23:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cruis'n (video game). It's been more than 48 hours since Oknazevad said they were working on collecting sources. Since then, only two sources about the Arcade1Up re-release have been added to the article. That's not enough coverage to meet notability. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 17:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me for having a full-time job. oknazevad (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You had enough time to write the long anecdotal opinion pieces above. In that time, you could have searched for sources and linked them in this discussion. It's an internet journalism-era game, so sources should be easy to find if they exist. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 19:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Research takes longer than writing off the cuff. That is, if you want to get it right.

Again, I don't actually oppose a merge, I just think the merged article belongs at the F&F title, as that's the original title and the version of the game that has better recognition among the general public, and therefore is more likely to be searched for by readers. Plus the way the merged article was written glossed over way too much, like having no mention of the updated quasi-sequels Drift and Super Cars at all, not the Arcade1Up unit. oknazevad (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. Please share some sources, because this is your 11th post in this discussion and still 0 sources shared to back your claims. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 19:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it was tagged for notability on June 2023 and redirected the following October, so these aren't exactly new concerns. You should have been far better prepared when you decided to recreate this. Sergecross73 msg me 19:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for some reason the arcade version article fell off my watch list, so I hadn't noticed. Undiscussed mergers are always a bad idea, in my opinion. oknazevad (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason (probably an accidental click at some point), the arcade game's article fell off my watchlist, so I hadn't realized they had Ben merged without discussion. Had I noticed, I likely would have opened discussion about the merger article's title and contents sooner. oknazevad (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You being busy isn't really the issue here. If you are too busy to find sources before recreating an article, you probably should just avoid recreating it. There's no exemption because you believe sources are there but are too busy to find them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:26, 12 February 2024 (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.