Talk:Snoot Game

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 April 2023. The result of the discussion was merge.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 05:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Snoot Game is a critically-panned alt-right parody of Goodbye Volcano High? Source: https://www.thepinknews.com/2022/11/07/goodbye-volcano-high-snoot-game-4chan/
- ALT1: ... that Snoot Game was condemned as "a vile anti-LGBTQ+ clone" of Goodbye Volcano High? Source: https://www.thepinknews.com/2022/11/07/goodbye-volcano-high-snoot-game-4chan/
- Reviewed:

Created by CJ-Moki (talk). Self-nominated at 05:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Snoot Game; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

Comment: the article has been PRODded. Schwede 66 12:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and now it's at AfD. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the article has been deleted, I'll withdraw this nomination. CJ-Moki (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AFD has been closed as merge, so closing the nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correction of Information in Article

This article appears to have misinformation used to describe Snoot Game. To start things off, I'll post in bullet form some the errors present.

- The main goal of the game is not to 'detransition' Fang despite what many gaming outlets have claimed that main premise of the game is, but rather to help both Anon (the playable character) and Fang grow as people through support. For Anon, his primary struggle is dealing with his apathy and anti-social personality, and for Fang it's helping them figure out who they are and making them feel supported. Fang's gender identity isn't really mentioned much other than a couple of times. When it is done in an insulting light like in one of the bad endings where they break up, it's treated as a bad outcome where Anon is in the wrong.

- While the designs were borrowed from Goodbye Volcano High under fair use copyright law, no assets were stolen. especially when the two games are incompatible with one another (Spine 2D for GVH and Ren'py for Snoot Game)

- Where is the Anti LGBT rhetoric that the game is accused to have? The only times I could see than when the 'f slur' is used in the typical 4chan humor context or as earlier mentioned, in one of the bad endings where Anon refers to Fang as such which is not glorified in the slightest.

- Where are the 'alt right' politics? Reference to 4chan memes/humor isn't really considered alt right.

- The game originated from /v/ (as well as help from a user from /lit/, not /vg/.

- Many of the articles that have talked about the game has displayed either a shallow understanding of what the game actually contains as well as displaying no understanding of the game's plot. As such they should not be viewed as reliable sources.

- While 'panned' by 'reviewers.' Many of the players of Snoot Game have given it a ton of acclaim, particularly with the art direction music, plot, and how characters like Anon and Fang were portrayed. As such, Snoot Game has developed something of a small cult following and many people have expressed playing the source game (Goodbye Volcano High) as a result of Snoot Game.

It would be best to allow a rewrite of this page so it can display more accurate information with less biases. 99.250.197.187 (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of the objections raised here object to what reliable secondary sources say about Snoot Game, its content, and its reception. Wikipedia summarizes reliable secondary sources, not user-made original research. CJ-Moki (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, did you even play the game? And have you ever thought that perhaps not all news outlets report the truth? Bidullo (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem that is causing this issue is that the game simply doesn't have enough coverage in reliable sources, period. Anything that might potentially clarify these issues one way or the other is inadmissible to Wikipedia, it gets almost no hits in major sites/publications. That shows the game is not ready for a standalone article yet, if it ever will be. It almost certainly will get deleted and/or redirected at some point. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't really make sense, since this pushes to just put in basically what a few major sites cover (which is potentially misleading most of the time), instead of writing true info about a topic, which is far more important. 37.102.33.221 (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's correct that Wikipedia does not focus on providing the absolute truth, see WP:TRUTH. It's a very common frustration because people "know" something is true, or that a game exists. But it's necessary to prevent hoaxes and misinformation. It can work both ways - someone could make a super detailed article full of false info, swear that it's true, and there'd be no way to disprove them without reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A better option would be to just cite as sourceless the entire article, but leave it as is, or at least improve it. Instead of calling for deletion like I've seen a few people do here. 37.102.33.221 (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]