501:
210:
484:
sources in the article so it can demonstrate its notability by its secondary sourcing; it might also be nice for it to be up to date, since the
Kickstarter campaign closed over two weeks ago and the article doesn't even make that clear, much less whether the fundraising was a success. My assumption, when reading the article, was that the campaign must still be in progress, because the text avoids any conclusion.
354:
536:
370:
403:: My thought when reading this, and then checking the sources, was to wonder whether this game was notable enough. It's a planned game that might be released in about a year, and there are only three sources. One is the developer's page, one is the Kickstarter page set up by the developer, and one is the Polygon site. Given
229:
It uses the Rock, Paper, Shotgun sources 6 times and the
Polygon.com source 5 times. That's hardly relying heavily on one source. Could you be more specific as to how this article lacks sufficient substance? I'm scratching my head here a bit on this. There are dozens of other references for both the
309:
Sufficiently covered for DYK? Yes, I do. I don't think the fact that the game hasn't been released yet should have any bearing on the article's acceptance at DYK; I have had many DYKs approved for unreleased games. What specific information do you believe the article needs to cover in order to meet
483:
My mistake on Rock Paper
Shotgun; I think I was misled by the text, which said he "describes" the game, which word I took to mean knowledge from the inside. (Not sure he could accurately describe it otherwise.) At any rate, perhaps you should include a couple of those other independent reliable
407:, the general notability guideline which says the article's subject must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", I have severe doubts as to whether, absent more than a single independent source—AGF on it being a
297:
Do you really think this article has been sufficiently covered? There is a lot of stuff missing mostly because the game hasn't been released yet. Information will become available as time passes but as of right now, is article, does not cover enough information. —
422:
I think you confused one of the refs with the external links, because two of them are independent: the Rock Paper
Shotgun article and the Polygon article. I only used two independent refs, but here are others if you want to
373:
Second opinion, article has enough content. Also it is big enough, even if duplicated text is removed, and newly made. no infringements detected. I an not checking any of the hooks though! Too many were nominated.
213:
While the hook is properly sourced, this article relies heavily on one source and only containing three sources, I'm not sure if there is enough substance in this article. I think a second opinion is needed. —
411:, as I don't know gaming sources—unaffiliated with the developer, this is sufficiently notable to qualify for DYK, or even, perhaps, to survive as an independent article at the present time.
461:
571:
260:
All the content in the article is based on reliable sources. More information certainly will come out over time. I am not clear as to what the specific problem is here. --
504:
No response in six days; will ping the user's talk page. I believe the issues noted above must be addressed before the article can be reviewed for approval.
184:
464:). I'd never heard of it before, but then I saw WP:VG vetted it and every time I google a new game the Polygon articles show up. Seems reliable to me. --
431:
249:
sources, and this is a game that is schuleled for late 2013-early 2014, more information will become available. Information can also change. —
434:
36:
428:
17:
440:
443:
44:
82:
437:
379:
145:
111:
326:
321:
If you read at the top, I am not sure. This is way I said "I think it needs a second opinion." Thank you, —
303:
280:
254:
219:
385:
The purpose is so a reviewer can just review one they like. If you don't want to check any, that's fine. --
544:
509:
489:
416:
65:
375:
231:
524:
469:
450:
390:
362:
322:
315:
299:
291:
276:
265:
250:
239:
215:
198:
456:
I would add that all of the refs listed and the ones in the article are considered reliable by
29:
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below.
540:
505:
485:
412:
61:
286:
Is there a particular area of the article that you feel I have not sufficiently covered? --
174:
457:
424:
40:
353:
565:
520:
465:
446:
404:
386:
358:
311:
287:
261:
235:
194:
500:
209:
408:
535:
275:
sources. There is not enough information in this article. That's the problem. —
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
369:
164:
151:
134:
117:
100:
460:. Very recent consensus was reached that Polygon.com is reliable as well (
170:
140:
106:
47:), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page.
230:
hook and the article out there if you need other proof, e.g.,
87:
271:
Yes, these are reliable sources, but there are only
201:). Self nom at 01:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
8:
49:No further edits should be made to this page
185:Template:Did you know nominations/Mann Lake
572:Failed DYK nominations from December 2012
143:, which itself was a sequel to the game
7:
24:
539:Nomination withdrawn by creator.
357:DYK requires a second opinion. --
18:Template:Did you know nominations
534:
519:Please close this nomination. --
499:
368:
352:
318:) 18:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
306:) 21:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
294:) 21:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
283:) 20:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
268:) 20:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
257:) 20:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
242:) 11:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
208:
419:) 20:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
382:) 10:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
365:) 13:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
329:) 06:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
222:) 05:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify this page.
547:) 14:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
527:) 07:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
512:) 01:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
492:) 00:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
472:) 22:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
453:) 22:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
393:) 15:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
68:) 23:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
1:
245:This article still only has
45:Knowledge talk:Did you know
37:this nomination's talk page
588:
173:in which a user plays as
131::... that the video game
169:is a sequel to a parody
146:Barkley Shut Up and Jam!
112:Barkley Shut Up and Jam!
97:... that the video game
41:the article's talk page
109:sequel to the game
425:verify notability
310:the DYK rules? --
202:
139:is a sequel to a
105:is a sequel to a
579:
538:
503:
372:
356:
212:
192:
60:by —
56:The result was:
34:
587:
586:
582:
581:
580:
578:
577:
576:
562:
561:
560:
409:reliable source
376:Graeme Bartlett
175:Charles Barkley
94:
92:
88:Article history
76:
69:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
585:
583:
575:
574:
564:
563:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
529:
528:
514:
513:
494:
493:
476:
475:
474:
473:
454:
397:
396:
395:
394:
366:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
224:
223:
190:
189:
188:
187:
178:
156:
123:
122:
91:
90:
85:
83:Back to T:TDYK
79:
77:
75:
72:
54:
53:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
584:
573:
570:
569:
567:
546:
542:
537:
533:
532:
531:
530:
526:
522:
518:
517:
516:
515:
511:
507:
502:
498:
497:
496:
495:
491:
487:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
471:
467:
463:
459:
455:
452:
448:
444:
441:
438:
435:
432:
429:
426:
421:
420:
418:
414:
410:
406:
402:
399:
398:
392:
388:
384:
383:
381:
377:
371:
367:
364:
360:
355:
351:
350:
328:
324:
323:DivaKnockouts
320:
319:
317:
313:
308:
307:
305:
301:
300:DivaKnockouts
296:
295:
293:
289:
285:
284:
282:
278:
277:DivaKnockouts
274:
270:
269:
267:
263:
259:
258:
256:
252:
251:DivaKnockouts
248:
244:
243:
241:
237:
233:
228:
227:
226:
225:
221:
217:
216:DivaKnockouts
211:
207:
206:
205:
204:
203:
200:
196:
186:
182:
179:
176:
172:
168:
167:
166:
160:
157:
154:
153:
149:and the film
148:
147:
142:
138:
137:
136:
130:
127:
126:
125:
124:
120:
119:
115:and the film
114:
113:
108:
104:
103:
102:
96:
95:
89:
86:
84:
81:
80:
73:
71:
67:
63:
59:
52:
50:
46:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
400:
272:
246:
193:Created by
191:
180:
163:
162:
158:
150:
144:
133:
132:
128:
116:
110:
99:
98:
57:
55:
48:
31:
28:
541:BlueMoonset
506:BlueMoonset
486:BlueMoonset
413:BlueMoonset
62:Crisco 1492
161::... that
70:Withdrawn
165:Barkley 2
152:Space Jam
135:Barkley 2
118:Space Jam
101:Barkley 2
74:Barkley 2
566:Category
521:Odie5533
466:Odie5533
447:Odie5533
387:Odie5533
359:Odie5533
312:Odie5533
288:Odie5533
262:Odie5533
236:Odie5533
232:this one
195:Odie5533
181:Reviewed
171:fan game
141:fan game
107:fan game
58:rejected
458:WP:VG/S
401:Comment
405:WP:GNG
273:three
247:three
16:<
545:talk
525:talk
510:talk
490:talk
470:talk
462:here
451:talk
445:. --
417:talk
391:talk
380:talk
363:talk
327:talk
316:talk
304:talk
292:talk
281:talk
266:talk
255:talk
240:talk
234:. --
220:talk
199:talk
159:ALT2
129:ALT1
66:talk
43:or
568::
442:,
439:,
436:,
433:,
430:,
427::
183::
78:(
39:,
543:(
523:(
508:(
488:(
468:(
449:(
415:(
389:(
378:(
361:(
325:(
314:(
302:(
290:(
279:(
264:(
253:(
238:(
218:(
197:(
177:?
155:?
121:?
93:)
64:(
51:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
