Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dora's Cooking Club

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The result was nomination withdrawn. (Non-admin closure) Raymie (t • c) 20:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dora's Cooking Club

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

I am unable to find sufficient critical reception for these games. Since my redirects to Dora the Explorer might get reverted, they are up for a deletion discussion.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) « ₣M₣ » 04:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Aren't pretty much all console games reviewed by some magazine or another? I remember, back in the day, that Nintendo Power would review stuff like Elmo's Letter Adventure. Granted, I don't follow the video game scene as closely as I used to, so maybe things are different. Zagalejo^^^ 06:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt magazines like NP will spend space these days reviewing games like this. Yes, pretty much all games will have at least a couple of reviews. Is that sufficient for them to have their own article, only keep the information on the franchises' main article, or merge them into something like this? « ₣M₣ » 16:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the a huge library of magazines, but the ones I checked did not cover the game. I still bet that the Journey to the Purple Planet was covered somewhere; it looks like a well put-together game. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did find this. Another place to look would be parenting magazines. To FMF: multiple reviews (if they exist) usually is the threshold for an individual article. Maybe a merge could work, but I've never been much of a mergist, myself. An individual article gives you a little more flexibility and freedom than a section in a larger article. Zagalejo^^^ 00:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Dora Puppy I found a review in The Guardian, Go.com, and Epsom Guardian. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Dora's Cooking Club I also found familyfriendlyvideogames.com and about.com. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Default to keep Journey to the Purple Planet technically just limbos under the notability stick due to being reviewed on IGN and in PlayStation 2 magazine. I wouldn't oppose a proper merge into a list resembling List of Batman video games, but I don't have time to do it myself and unless someone else is they're better off as they are. Someone another 20:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose that style merge. In fact, I don't like {{Video game titles}} at all; I think sectioned prose is superior, especially when the games do not have stand alone articles. If there is consensus to merge, I would be willing to merge them. Would List of Dora the Explorer video games be a good title? And will anyone else agree that they should be merged? --Odie5533 (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That format, or sortable tables, have advantages for longer lists; the standard information like release date and formats are put in a pile leaving the description section to contain the juicy details. This isn't a long list though, and if you're going to put in the effort then it's your choice as far as I'm concerned. I'd call it by that name too :) If any of them can stand alone, it would also be possible to leave the article as is and link to it from the list. Someone another 14:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 00:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Odie. That's fine by me. So that's the result then? No one has objected thus far. « ₣M₣ » 23:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This can be withdrawn. « ₣M₣ » 16:20, 1 October 2011 (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.