Talk:Banana (2024 video game)

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a video game consisting solely of a clickable image of a banana became the second most played game on Steam?

• Source: https://gamerant.com/banana-free-to-play-game-steam-player-count-blowing-up/ and https://www.polygon.com/gaming/24173617/banana-clicker-game-steam-egg

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/1964 New York World's Fair pavilions

Created by Generalissima (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 56 past nominations.

Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC).

• @Generalissima: Article looks good, QPQ is done, etc. When I first saw the hook I wasn't sure if "second most played" referred to a concurrent count, or of a number of purchases in the past month or all time. I think it might be better to add something to the effect of "concurrent". You passed me in DYKs :(. ―Panamitsu (talk) 03:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah, maybe "reached the second highest concurrent player count on Steam?" Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Yup that looks good to me. ―Panamitsu (talk) 03:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I do have some major doubts about this "game"'s notability. Mainly, I think it fails WP:SUSTAINED, as it appears to be a flash-in-the-pan phenomenon that quickly drops off the radar and there is nothing to really talk about with regards to its content. I am not sure if DYK articles are required to pass notability criteria (the guidelines simply say "reliably sourced") but it risks coming off as advertising if a non-notable gimmick reaches the main page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  • @Zxcvbnm: I feel the article pretty plainly meets GNG. It's covered in-depth in a wide variety of reliable sources for a month now, including Forbes. Even "gimmicks" are notable if they get significant, reliable coverage. (And no, notability is not a DYK thing. If it gets AFD'ed thats another issue.) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
    • The only sources in the article are from a 2-week timespan from the beginning of June to a few days ago. That, to me and likely most other editors is not a sustained span of time in which the "game" is discussed. That goes into the realm of Wikipedia as news website rather than as a lagging indicator of notability. "Brief bursts of news coverage" do not demonstrate notability. There's a possibility that several months from now, the "game" will still be major, but we are not a crystal ball. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
    • @Zxcvbnm: But lots of games have articles relatively soon after release. How can we say *any* game will or won't have coverage? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
      • Usually games have some degree of pre-release announcements and whatnot even before it comes out, with release day only cementing its notability. I'd say literally any game article that is created shortly after a game is announced is frowned upon for being WP:TOOSOON. I'm not saying it should be deleted now, but it does risk being deleted at a later date if its popularity fails to last. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The fact that this scam gets an article

Yet thousands of more notable topics don't means that Wikipedia is in on the scam. 92.40.204.213 (talk) 08:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how. Wikipedia having an article on a topic doesn't mean that it endorses the topic, merely that the topic is notable. While there have been discussions about its notability, a game with 800,000 concurrent players (whether through botting or otherwise) certainly seems notable, and a scam with 800,000 victims would definitely be notable IMO. F1Krazy (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)