1138:) is actually a press release that Gamasutra picked up and put on their website. However, I agree with Thanar's reasoning above for the reliability of the references he cited. I also am not convinced by Gnangarra's reasoning, which was that "I reviewed each of the sources and found them questionable or outright unreliable in establishing notability", as he does not specifically cite why Thanar's reasoning is incorrect. I feel that Gnangarra must not have completely read into the reasoning behind the notability for these websites. The GameZone notability is
819:: created Development and Reception sections, removed news & review site links from External links, made player base statistics more accurate and neutral point of view, reworked opening paragraph, updated system requirements, and added references. There's more to be done, but it is a start. I suggest that editors who have not read these guidelines do so before editing the article.
703:
Online" more a valid MMORPGs in space than us to only name one (there are many others i could list but i don't want to derail this post). So yea, my point is there are specific games/mmo's category on wikipedia, and i firmly believe any and all games fitting these category should be on there, otherwise it kinda defeat the purpose of being an encyclopedia doesn't it ? .
735:
I understand that argument. You have a basic expectation that
Knowledge (XXG) will be consistent and fair, and that if another similar page is allowed, then yours should be. I'm afraid that isn't quite how it is; we discuss things on a case-by-case basis, one at a time, and we simply haven't got to
541:
is where the procedural closure was added, there was no community discussion, nor IMO has the history of the procedural nomination since then shown it to be a good idea. It is always the same story–if there is no one willing to do the work to prepare a nomination, there is no need for a discussion.
702:
While i would agree with you if the category were not " 2004 video games | Massively multiplayer online role-playing games | Windows games |MMORPGs in space" but they are. Those category are part of the online encyclopedia, we did not create them. So please explain to me how is "Battlestar
Galactica
1100:
The unanimous decision at AfD 2 and IMO the consensus view from AfD 3 made the community consensus clear that this article didn't have quite enough sourcing in 2008, and that the article should be kept in mainspace for at least six months while a search proceeded. Whether or not a source from 2012
1046:
notable. But there is sufficient in-depth information available in these sources to write a Star Sonata article. Finally, I think certain elements of gameplay highlighted by reviewers (programmable slave AI ships and the ability to be crowned
Emperor and win the MMO) supports the game's notability.
844:
with editorial oversight the piece linked appears to be a blog with no editorial oversight though it is a comprehensive review, Gametunnel appears to be similar though the review is less comprehensive, gamezone posting is a blog by an annonomouse user. Additional sources are from Star Sonata which
632:
I've never had much patience with WP:ATA. It's just a laundry list of things some editors think other editors shouldn't be allowed to say in AfD discussions, and its logic is often shaky or nonexistent. Whenever I use a WP:ATA argument, you may safely assume that (1) I'm well aware of WP:ATA and
510:
No. Your position is that there's something the matter with IronGargoyle's nomination. I don't accept that at all. It's well established that deletion review closers can and do nominate material for deletion in this way, and any attempt to do the background reading to which IronGargoyle clearly
386:
The DRV discussion overturned a speedy deletion as being not valid and consensus was that an AFD was the appropriate action that should have occurred, the creation of this nomination was by the admin who closed that discussion thus the admins declaration that its a procedural nomination is correct
466:
With all due respect for the editors above, there clearly is a rationale for deletion, which is that it's of strictly limited notability and the sources leave much to be desired. I don't see how this is a fit subject for an encyclopaedia article and although I agree with Jey123456 that it's not
613:
So the second problem with this nomination is that it makes no pretense to being anything other than an argument not to make. As such, third, it neither follows WP:BEFORE nor discusses WP:ATD alternatives to deletion. At the DRV, you state that you want the discussion here to be "a proper
1078:
I reviewed each of the sources and found them questionable or outright unreliable in establishing notability. That is the same issue raised in previous AFD's the sources provided are those that have always been used to base notability, the only new source is a blog.
1142:, and I'm swayed by Thanar's arguments about GameTunnel, the one website which I would have to put firmly on the fence. All this said though, this is a minimum, and unreliable references should be cut from the article. Either way though, I !vote for a weak keep.
770:
Fair enough, i retract that argument, although your argument being that the sources are to be desired, i believe that at the very least gamespy, onrpg, gamezone would be enough independent third party sources to deserve being in the games section of wikipedia.
399:
I think that was not so much consensus as it was a courtesy gesture to some senior editors including yourself. The majority did not request the procedural nomination. Why do we need a discussion if there is no one willing nominate the article for deletion?
495:
Seems like this comment is straddling the fence with trial balloons. If you think that there is an argument for deletion as you hint, I suggest that you procedurally close this AfD and start an AfD that prepares the community with WP:BEFORE analysis.
371:
The procedurally-started discussion ensures that there will be a discussion even if no one is willing to nominate the article for deletion. Why do we need a discussion if there is no one willing to nominate the article for deletion?
235:. Article was speedily deleted per CSD G4, but this was overturned on appeal. Participants in the DRV still had substantial concerns with the article, so it was relisted here. As this is a procedural nomination, I am
865:(that I updated a few days ago when I found a non-archived version) and discovered that it omits the reviewer name, giving the impression that it is from the anonymous jkdmedia. I just reverted it to the archived
200:
902:
I have been a substantial contributor to this article. I think the general notability guideline, whether "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"
429:
I'm obviously biased being a developer on that game, but still there is no reasons to delete that article. The page is not blatant advertising and there are plenty of references and the data is accurate.
590:
586:
556:
95:
90:
85:
1159:
1139:
268:
1105:
source marked "blog" is from an author identified there as "G4TV Staff", so the article brings with it the reputation and legal responsibility of the organization. As per our article,
668:, this time in the guise of two questions, do not make the case that procedural nominations are "well established", nor IMO are they a substitute for a considered deletion rationale.
816:
594:
593:
this article. As such it should have been promptly closed. The nomination states, "the article has not been improved (citation wise) since the last AFD", which is an argument from
450:
but rather a discussion on the merrits of the topic in relation to policies set by the community what the community decides it isnt a critical reflection on yourself or the subject
1029:
in the indie games milieu." Although some GameTunnel writers may have lacked game industry experience/education, the author of the Star Sonata review, Joseph
Lieberman, worked in
155:
100:
946:
in the field of video gaming per past consensus. I consider
Gamespy’s listing to be significant coverage of Star Sonata 2 because the fact of being selected for such a
796:
There are enough reliable sources to establish notability. Sure, it's an old game and hard to find new sources, but I think that for what it is we have a good amount.
194:
160:
1067:
the sources listed dont have any community discussion attached to show that the community consensus has established them as reliable specifically the pages states
80:
256:
232:
321:
No rationale for deletion, if there was no one willing to do the work to nominate this article for deletion, then there was no need to start the discussion.
1064:
1163:
hasnt established anything that is one person listing, no other person reviewed the listing, no context to the list and no discussion by the community.
286:
1135:
1023:
963:
offers significant independent coverage of Star Sonata. At the time of the Star Sonata review (2005), GameTunnel had
Russell Carroll as
274:
262:
17:
1220:
757:
652:
572:
524:
480:
874:
992:
639:
to do with what you see as flawed processes or procedures? Do you have any fresh sources to bring to the debate, for example?—
128:
123:
1228:
1201:
1170:
1151:
1118:
1086:
1056:
890:
852:
828:
805:
780:
761:
726:
712:
677:
656:
623:
576:
551:
528:
505:
484:
457:
439:
409:
394:
381:
354:
340:
307:
248:
63:
926:
878:
132:
1069:
This list is neither complete nor can it be used as definitive proof regarding a listed source's reliability determination
958:
215:
968:
866:
182:
115:
1248:
40:
964:
737:
1072:
922:
1022:
suggested GameTunnel as a reliable source because it "runs an annual independent game of the year award which has
918:
815:
I've made the following improvements to the article's structure and content based on the do's and don'ts given in
467:
blatant advertising, I do think that the strong motivation to keep this piece is motivated by marketing concerns.—
1114:
673:
619:
547:
501:
405:
377:
336:
326:
57:
280:
1102:
176:
1003:
666:
1216:
1076:
participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply
1015:
1224:
1196:
870:
244:
950:
list (rather than, say, a weekly one) is significant in itself, making it "more than a trivial mention" (
776:
722:
708:
435:
1244:
302:
172:
36:
1110:
753:
669:
648:
615:
568:
543:
520:
497:
476:
401:
373:
332:
322:
1034:
972:
943:
930:
869:, which correctly states that the reviewer is Matt Eberle. Matt Eberle wrote articles for GameZone,
772:
740:, and I'll personally nominate it for deletion in due course. (You can read further information at
736:
the
Battlestar Galactica Online page yet. Now that you mention it, I see that we do need to delete
718:
704:
447:
431:
1167:
1083:
986:
849:
454:
391:
351:
222:
208:
53:
1048:
882:
820:
1191:
1147:
1011:
240:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1243:
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
1052:
886:
824:
119:
1210:
1187:
1127:
951:
904:
837:
741:
745:
640:
560:
512:
468:
1183:
841:
188:
862:
840:
the sourcing is very weak
Gamespy is just a list, onRPG,com doesnt appear to standup as
1164:
1080:
980:
846:
801:
451:
388:
348:
907:), has been satisfied by the following 5 references to 3 independent reliable sources:
1026:
937:
511:
links in his nomination will show you how WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD have been satisfied.—
1143:
149:
614:
discussion", is this nomination the foundation for "a proper discussion" here?.
604:
five weeks for someone to add cites, they didn't, and I have lost my patience. –
1019:
111:
69:
1101:
satisfied the intent of 2008, the need for more sourcing is now answered. The
1002:
noted that
Russell appeared to be “an employee of a game development company,
1131:
1007:
797:
1037:), I consider the GameTunnel review of Star Sonata to be a reliable source.
929:
provide significant independent coverage of Star Sonata. GameZone has been
1190:. I'll concede it isn't pretty, but there's enough there to work with.
861:
The
Gamezone review was actually written by Matt Eberle. I checked the
387:
and that by nomination "he" isnt expressing any opinion on the matter.
1030:
589:. It took place five weeks after six editors unanimously !voted to
877:
at GameZone, who described Matt as a “Fellow MMOer and GZ writer”
1042:
The shortness of the above list suggests that Star Sonata is only
845:
are self references, or from Reddit which isnt a reliable source.
1033:. For these reasons of editorial oversight and author expertise (
347:
consensus of the DRV was that this discussion should take place.
1237:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1106:
717:
Updated the page with the external links mentioned in the DRV.
585:
Your edit comment says "pfff". The nomination you point to is
1010:
and GameSetWatch consider him an authority on indie games, as
836:
after reviewing all the sources I'm not convinvced this meets
635:
Unscintillating, do you have any objections to deletion that
817:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines
633:(2) I'm disregarding that essay with all due forethought.
231:
This is a procedural nomination following the outcome of
446:
thank you for being honest in your association, this is
538:
293:
145:
141:
137:
207:
587:
WP:Articles for deletion/Star Sonata (3rd nomination)
1065:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#List
537:"No"? "Well established"? Where is the evidence?
221:
96:Articles for deletion/Star Sonata (4th nomination)
91:Articles for deletion/Star Sonata (3rd nomination)
86:Articles for deletion/Star Sonata (2nd nomination)
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1251:). No further edits should be made to this page.
933:in the field of video gaming per past consensus.
881:. Sorry about the confusion my bad edit caused.
331:striking !vote as there is now a delete !vote.
257:list of video game-related deletion discussions
557:Someone doing the work to prepare a nomination
598:
595:WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
8:
255:Note: This debate has been included in the
609:Gone Fishing, 01:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
285:
101:Articles for deletion/Star Sonata Guide
78:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
873:an article with Michael Lafferty, a
76:
291:
24:
1134:article in the references (found
81:Articles for deletion/Star Sonata
279:
1:
1184:reliable, third party sources
1182:- There's enough coverage in
1071:. Additionally when you read
975:of GameTunnel’s reliability,
273:
1109:is a part of NBCUniversal.
329:) 02:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
267:
1229:02:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
1202:15:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
1171:00:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
738:Battlestar Galactica Online
410:15:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
261:
64:16:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
1268:
1152:14:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
1119:09:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
1087:11:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
1057:07:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
891:07:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
853:05:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
829:23:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
806:19:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
781:17:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
762:16:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
727:12:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
713:12:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
678:00:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
657:07:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
624:03:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
577:01:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
552:01:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
529:15:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
506:22:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
485:11:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
458:05:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
440:11:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
395:10:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
382:09:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
355:05:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
341:09:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
308:01:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
249:01:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
1240:Please do not modify it.
1140:clearly established here
32:Please do not modify it.
1213:as far as I can tell.
1004:Reflexive Entertainment
944:established as reliable
931:established as reliable
612:
75:AfDs for this article:
1018:would suggest.” Also
607:My Way or the Highway
1031:video game marketing
427:Speedy keep WP:NPASR
317:Speedy keep WP:NPASR
927:developer interview
919:pre-release article
600:Delete I gave them
48:The result was
1219:comment added by
1160:clearly this here
1073:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS
1001:
960:Gametunnel review
760:
655:
610:
575:
527:
483:
310:
306:
1259:
1242:
1231:
1209:- Seems to pass
1199:
1194:
1130:but barely. The
999:
998:
995:
989:
983:
976:
973:past discussions
967:(2002-2009). In
752:
750:
647:
645:
605:
567:
565:
519:
517:
475:
473:
305:
303:Northamerica1000
300:
298:
297:
296:
289:
283:
277:
271:
265:
254:
226:
225:
211:
163:
153:
135:
60:
34:
1267:
1266:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1249:deletion review
1238:
1214:
1197:
1192:
1111:Unscintillating
993:
987:
981:
979:
978:
965:editor-in-chief
842:reliable source
746:
670:Unscintillating
641:
616:Unscintillating
561:
544:Unscintillating
513:
498:Unscintillating
469:
402:Unscintillating
374:Unscintillating
333:Unscintillating
323:Unscintillating
301:
292:
260:
168:
159:
126:
110:
107:
105:
73:
62:
58:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1265:
1263:
1254:
1253:
1233:
1232:
1204:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1126:: This passes
1121:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1016:this interview
1012:this interview
955:
934:
909:
908:
896:
895:
894:
893:
856:
855:
831:
809:
808:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
765:
764:
730:
729:
715:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
661:
660:
627:
626:
580:
579:
532:
531:
488:
487:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
312:
311:
229:
228:
165:
106:
104:
103:
98:
93:
88:
83:
77:
74:
72:
67:
56:
54:The Bushranger
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1264:
1252:
1250:
1246:
1241:
1235:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1222:
1218:
1212:
1208:
1205:
1203:
1200:
1195:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1178:
1172:
1169:
1166:
1162:
1161:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1122:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1099:
1096:
1095:
1088:
1085:
1082:
1077:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1045:
1041:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1000:
996:
990:
984:
982:Levi van Tine
974:
970:
966:
962:
961:
956:
953:
949:
945:
942:- Gamespy is
941:
940:
935:
932:
928:
924:
920:
917:
913:
912:
911:
910:
906:
901:
898:
897:
892:
888:
884:
880:
876:
875:head reviewer
872:
868:
864:
860:
859:
858:
857:
854:
851:
848:
843:
839:
835:
832:
830:
826:
822:
818:
814:
811:
810:
807:
803:
799:
795:
792:
791:
782:
778:
774:
769:
768:
767:
766:
763:
759:
755:
751:
749:
743:
739:
734:
733:
732:
731:
728:
724:
720:
716:
714:
710:
706:
701:
700:
699:
698:
679:
675:
671:
667:
665:
664:
663:
662:
659:
658:
654:
650:
646:
644:
638:
631:
630:
629:
628:
625:
621:
617:
611:
608:
603:
596:
592:
588:
584:
583:
582:
581:
578:
574:
570:
566:
564:
558:
555:
554:
553:
549:
545:
540:
536:
535:
534:
533:
530:
526:
522:
518:
516:
509:
508:
507:
503:
499:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
486:
482:
478:
474:
472:
465:
459:
456:
453:
449:
445:
444:
443:
442:
441:
437:
433:
428:
425:
424:
411:
407:
403:
398:
397:
396:
393:
390:
385:
384:
383:
379:
375:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
356:
353:
350:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
338:
334:
330:
328:
324:
319:
318:
314:
313:
309:
304:
295:
288:
282:
276:
270:
264:
258:
253:
252:
251:
250:
246:
242:
238:
234:
224:
220:
217:
214:
210:
206:
202:
199:
196:
193:
190:
187:
184:
181:
178:
174:
171:
170:Find sources:
166:
162:
157:
151:
147:
143:
139:
134:
130:
125:
121:
117:
113:
109:
108:
102:
99:
97:
94:
92:
89:
87:
84:
82:
79:
71:
68:
66:
65:
61:
59:One ping only
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1239:
1236:
1215:— Preceding
1206:
1193:Sergecross73
1186:to meet the
1179:
1158:
1123:
1097:
1075:
1068:
1043:
977:
959:
947:
939:Gamespy List
938:
915:
899:
833:
812:
793:
747:
642:
636:
634:
606:
601:
599:
562:
514:
470:
426:
320:
316:
315:
241:IronGargoyle
236:
230:
218:
212:
204:
197:
191:
185:
179:
169:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1063:Looking at
1027:recognition
871:co-authored
867:review link
863:review link
195:free images
112:Star Sonata
70:Star Sonata
1221:75.2.132.3
1035:WP:NEWSORG
748:S Marshall
643:S Marshall
602:six months
563:S Marshall
515:S Marshall
471:S Marshall
448:not a vote
1245:talk page
1132:Gamasutra
1124:Weak Keep
1044:minimally
1008:Gamasutra
773:Jey123456
719:Jey123456
705:Jey123456
432:Jey123456
37:talk page
1247:or in a
1217:unsigned
916:GameZone
233:This DRV
156:View log
39:or in a
1144:Nomader
971:of two
957:3. The
936:2. The
914:1. The
813:Comment
237:neutral
201:WPÂ refs
189:scholar
129:protect
124:history
1211:WP:GNG
1198:msg me
1188:WP:GNG
1128:WP:GNG
1049:Thanar
1020:MLauba
952:WP:GNG
948:yearly
923:review
905:WP:GNG
883:Thanar
838:WP:GNG
834:Delete
821:Thanar
742:WP:OCE
637:aren't
173:Google
133:delete
1168:garra
1084:garra
850:garra
455:garra
392:garra
352:garra
216:JSTOR
177:books
161:Stats
150:views
142:watch
138:links
16:<
1225:talk
1207:Keep
1180:Keep
1165:Gnan
1148:talk
1136:here
1115:talk
1107:G4TV
1103:G4TV
1098:Keep
1081:Gnan
1053:talk
1024:some
925:and
900:Keep
887:talk
879:here
847:Gnan
825:talk
802:talk
798:Ng.j
794:KEEP
777:talk
723:talk
709:talk
674:talk
620:talk
591:keep
548:talk
539:Here
502:talk
452:Gnan
436:talk
406:talk
389:Gnan
378:talk
349:Gnan
337:talk
327:talk
294:Talk
245:talk
209:FENS
183:news
146:logs
120:talk
116:edit
50:keep
1014:or
1006:.
969:one
744:.)—
259:. (
223:TWL
158:•
154:– (
1227:)
1150:)
1117:)
1055:)
991:–
954:).
921:,
889:)
827:)
804:)
779:)
725:)
711:)
676:)
622:)
597::
559:.—
550:)
504:)
438:)
408:)
380:)
339:)
299:)
287:RS
247:)
239:.
203:)
148:|
144:|
140:|
136:|
131:|
127:|
122:|
118:|
52:.
1223:(
1146:(
1113:(
1051:(
997:)
994:c
988:t
985:(
903:(
885:(
823:(
800:(
775:(
758:C
756:/
754:T
721:(
707:(
672:(
653:C
651:/
649:T
618:(
573:C
571:/
569:T
546:(
525:C
523:/
521:T
500:(
481:C
479:/
477:T
434:(
404:(
376:(
335:(
325:(
290:·
284:·
281:S
278:·
275:B
272:·
269:N
266:·
263:G
243:(
227:)
219:·
213:·
205:·
198:·
192:·
186:·
180:·
175:(
167:(
164:)
152:)
114:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.