343:, I do not see the article as promotional (nevertheless overly promotional). As for the quality of the information in the sources, this type of sourcing is endemic to the genre and all prerelease video game articles start this way—the RS are reporting what the developer has to give (unless they're getting around the developer somehow?) and we have no reason to not use what the RS deemed worthy for publication. The only other argument I could see is for a redirect if the sourcing was too thin (which I judge to not be the case here), but even that would be a merge conversation and this topic would not qualify for a deletion discussion (AfD).
546:- per Masem. I understand where the nomination's argument is, but I don't think it warrants deletion as long as the article properly uses its sources to summarize what's given so far. Sourcing is indeed limited to what the publisher has released (which is normal with unreleased games), but the fact that media has been covering the game establishes notability. I don't see the article as promotional at all. Coverage is coverage, and any newly announced game of notable nature will receive this type of hype. Sure, our job is not to help promote products, but it
307:" seem to be wholly reliant on what the publishers say. We see magazines quoting (or even publishing verbatim) manufacturers' press releases all the time, but that does not make these necessarily objective. The only thing that is currently verifiable is that the production company has said certain things. In building an article around these news articles, we may be unwittingly falling for the media hype and not true information. --
459:
appropriately filtered and summarized or commented on by third party/independent reliable sources is not a promotional issue. I do agree that at this little detail so far, summarizing what is known at the franchise article is better, but there's no grounds to delete (hence the merge and redirect, and
421:, and that alone appears to be sufficient for the product at the current stage of development. And just because the VG industry has a certain modus operandi – away of leaking, sneaking or advance-publishing information, it's a policy that is questionable in Knowledge terms in that it seems to violate
407:
taking place here). Of course, I'm likely to be opposed by fans of VG culture, but I did not intend on being adversarial here. I'm not challenging that these sources are less than reliable when reviewing the products. Different reliable sources are known to be more reliable and authoritative under
408:
different circumstances. And just because it's an established industry/publication that has always done things in a particular way, that does not make it non-promotional in nature. Such pre-releasing information of this type does not make it any more objective, any more than if it was
354:
03:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Furthermore, what I see to be the nom's main contentions are issues with the way video game reporting is done. Referring to the reporting as hype, the "announcements" in ersatz quotes, and the RS as "so-called" all show disdain for sources determined at
554:
of
Knowledge's articles are subject to how the press, media, and individuals cover various subjects. Whether or not a subject's notability is established from hype doesn't make much of a difference to me, as long as the subject remains notable and reliably covered.
285:! Thanks for taking the time to write up an explanation/opinion. What you're trying to say is that, because the game has not been released yet, there are not enough sources that would provide the article with an independent, well-rounded perspective? Thanks, --
255:, or stubbed down until the product is available either as a "proven" product, or an advanced beta. The article needs third party critical commentary, but none of the "reviewers" has had any first-hand experience of the game, so technically these are
416:
and cannot be supported by reliable independent information. At present, the sources are reliably quoting what the production company is saying about the product. No more, no less. Summary information about this product already exists in
202:
303:
information. What I am saying is that, due to the current dearth of freely-available information about the product, whose launch is months away, even third party sources normally considered "
550:
our job to cover subjects that are notable through media coverage, which I think this falls under. Deleting the article to avoid following the press bandwagon doesn't make sense to me -
359:
to be reliable. This aside, the article very clearly meets the GNG with its current and dedicated sourcing if we aren't calling the very nature of video games reporting into question.
245:
are writing directly from what the publishers are saying about the product. If what they say in the press release that everyone is basing their columns on is wrong, the whole thing
123:
259:
reviews; we won't get that until much nearer the release date when true reviewers have had the chance to play the game in its final version and give it a thorough test drive.
493:
176:
340:
241:" . Well, one source has screen shots of the graphics, but these again all originate "exclusively", directly from the publisher. That means all the so-called
481:
251:
The product will be notable shortly, but my objection is that it is here prematurely. I would have no objection to it being either redirected to
130:
237:
in the summer. Sure, fans are waiting for an online game version with bated breath, but the article itself is based almost exclusively on "
387:
to being unintentionally promotional. I often read Hi-fi and computing mags, and do note that such articles are "endemic", because people
299:
Yes, in short. But it's not strictly about whether the product is on public release or not. It's about the availability of independently
573:
96:
91:
395:
because such practice is endemic that we need to discuss this perhaps in this AfD and certainly elsewhere in light of our policy on
100:
511:
339:
with significant coverage from a variety of independent, reliable sources currently included in the article. As mentioned in the
208:
83:
17:
249:. Understandably, the publishers are getting their publicity ducks all in a row. Let not Knowledge become one of those ducks.
170:
399:, paid or otherwise (and, for the avoidance of any doubt, let me categorically state that I'm not accusing or implying any
146:
499:
487:
152:
53:
596:
61:
40:
158:
290:
577:
535:
472:
439:
370:
321:
294:
273:
142:
65:
570:
404:
592:
437:
422:
319:
271:
36:
188:
57:
418:
396:
252:
182:
87:
400:
286:
563:
558:
413:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
591:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
505:
428:
412:. I never disputed that the long-awaited product itself will fail WP:GNG, merely that it is
310:
282:
262:
164:
468:
356:
246:
234:
79:
71:
194:
336:
229:
304:
242:
117:
300:
461:
529:
409:
364:
348:
238:
585:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
379:
It's true that I probably wouldn't be here if I hadn't seen the
214:
455:. Pre-release information that may come from the published
391:
interested in what's in the development pipeline. And it's
518:
384:
380:
220:
113:
109:
105:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
599:). No further edits should be made to this page.
482:list of video game-related deletion discussions
8:
480:Note: This debate has been included in the
510:
235:help hype the product for its release
7:
516:
24:
460:expanding when it comes out.) --
504:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
383:, which now even the proposer
1:
578:07:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
536:14:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
498:
473:06:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
440:04:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
371:03:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
322:03:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
295:02:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
274:02:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
66:01:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
492:
486:
616:
588:Please do not modify it.
140:Find video game sources:
32:Please do not modify it.
335:. The game meets the
419:Firefly (franchise)
48:The result was
576:
538:
436:
318:
270:
183:free news sources
54:non-admin closure
607:
590:
569:
566:
534:
532:
528:
523:
522:
521:
514:
508:
502:
496:
490:
479:
465:
453:Merge + Redirect
435:
432:
426:
369:
367:
363:
353:
351:
347:
317:
314:
308:
269:
266:
260:
243:reliable sources
223:
143:"Firefly Online"
133:
121:
103:
34:
615:
614:
610:
609:
608:
606:
605:
604:
603:
597:deletion review
586:
564:
530:
526:
525:
517:
485:
463:
430:
427:
365:
361:
360:
349:
345:
344:
312:
309:
264:
261:
138:
129:
94:
78:
75:
58:DavidLeighEllis
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
613:
611:
602:
601:
581:
580:
540:
539:
476:
475:
451:, or at worst
445:
444:
443:
442:
423:WP:ADVERTISING
381:DYK nomination
374:
373:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
324:
226:
225:
135:
80:Firefly Online
74:
72:Firefly Online
69:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
612:
600:
598:
594:
589:
583:
582:
579:
575:
572:
568:
567:
562:
561:
553:
549:
545:
542:
541:
537:
533:
520:
513:
507:
501:
495:
489:
483:
478:
477:
474:
470:
466:
458:
454:
450:
447:
446:
441:
438:
434:
433:
424:
420:
415:
411:
406:
402:
398:
394:
390:
386:
382:
378:
377:
376:
375:
372:
368:
358:
352:
342:
338:
334:
331:
330:
323:
320:
316:
315:
306:
302:
298:
297:
296:
292:
288:
287:Bananasoldier
284:
280:
279:
278:
277:
276:
275:
272:
268:
267:
258:
254:
248:
244:
240:
239:announcements
236:
232:
231:
222:
219:
216:
213:
210:
207:
204:
201:
198:
197:
193:
190:
187:
184:
181:
178:
175:
172:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
144:
141:
136:
132:
128:
125:
119:
115:
111:
107:
102:
98:
93:
89:
85:
81:
77:
76:
73:
70:
68:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
587:
584:
559:
556:
551:
547:
543:
456:
452:
448:
429:
405:paid editing
392:
388:
332:
311:
263:
256:
250:
228:
217:
211:
205:
203:WP reference
199:
195:
191:
185:
179:
173:
167:
161:
155:
149:
139:
126:
49:
47:
31:
28:
283:Ohconfucius
247:falls apart
227:Our job is
177:free images
301:verifiable
153:newspapers
593:talk page
414:premature
410:Vaporware
397:promotion
221:WPVG/Talk
37:talk page
595:or in a
574:Contribs
401:advocacy
357:WP:VG/RS
305:reliable
124:View log
39:or in a
565:Hamster
393:exactly
341:DYK nom
253:Firefly
165:scholar
97:protect
92:history
385:admits
101:delete
560:Super
215:VG/RL
209:VG/RS
171:JSTOR
159:books
131:Stats
118:views
110:watch
106:links
16:<
571:Talk
544:Keep
527:czar
519:Talk
464:ASEM
449:Keep
431:Ohc
425:. --
362:czar
346:czar
333:Keep
313:Ohc
291:talk
265:Ohc
147:news
114:logs
88:talk
84:edit
62:talk
50:keep
552:all
484:. (
457:but
403:or
389:are
337:GNG
281:Hi
257:not
233:to
230:not
196:NYT
189:TWL
122:– (
52:. (
548:is
524:)
512:RS
471:)
293:)
145:–
116:|
112:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
64:)
56:)
557:~
531:♔
515:·
509:·
506:S
503:·
500:B
497:·
494:N
491:·
488:G
469:t
467:(
462:M
366:♔
350:♔
289:(
224:)
218:·
212:·
206:·
200:·
192:·
186:·
180:·
174:·
168:·
162:·
156:·
150:·
137:(
134:)
127:·
120:)
82:(
60:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.