564:. I've found multiple sources that talk about the game and some reviews of the beta runs of the game, so the game looks to be notable enough to keep. Now all that aside, arguing isn't going to get us anywhere. The original article format was awful and given the amount of gaming websites out there that are known for posting user reviews that don't count towards notability, it's easy to see how it'd be confusing to sort through things if you're not as familiar with the gaming sites. In any given AfD topic, there are a lot of sites that come up under GNews or other search engines that aren't usable as RS, so it's not always as easy as googling. I don't really see where this nomination was really all that bad, honestly. It resulted in the article getting some much needed love and proper sourcing, so this AfD had some merit because it brought it to the attention of various users that could edit. Maybe GenQuest could've asked around, but that's sort of a moot point and other than
839:- There seems to be several various sources which support information in the article, the article is also in regards to a video game which hasn't been released, however, it is entering the alpha testing phase. I'm sure at the end of the alpha testing phase there will be more articles with more information regarding the topic. The article has been up for ten days. Five of those days have had the deletion discussion occurring. As for sources, the game publisher would be one source, IGN and PCGamer are independant, reliable sources; and The Escapist, Joystiq, and Destructoid, while not preferred source material, are able to be used.
661:, which shows that most of the sources used in the article are fine, while others are okay in some situations. Whether or not the game is released is not a criterion for notability. Many many games get coverage before they are released, just as films and other forms of media entertainment get coverage prior to being available for direct consumption. The standard for notability is whether it receives significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, which it does. —
543:. Alluding to anyone having a personal slight against someone or something really isn't the way to go about this. We should always assume good faith when it comes to things of this nature unless someone does something so above and beyond the reasonable rationale of good faith that it's obvious. I believe that GenQuest was operating in good faith. A little hasty, but in good faith. Making swipes isn't any way to conduct ourselves.
820:. I think there's enough there with the non-debatable reliable sources, let alone the ones that are somewhat borderline. (From my experience at AFD, Joystiq is usually one of those sources that are considered "useable if that's all there is, but something to avoid or replace if/when other sources are available.
539:
mentioned and much of the article was taken from various press releases. As far as download links go, the nominator is probably referring to the website link at the bottom. In any case, best way to argue for an article being kept is to remain calm, source the article accordingly, and argue based on points from
507:
The article does not contain nay direct links to downlaod the game, only to the website itself, which is perfectly in reason It most certainly
Notable as it has been on several high caliber websites Additionally there there is no mention of pricing on the page what so ever, other than one payment is
338:
that was initially on
Knowledge should not have been there for 5 minutes, let alone several days. The references added since my nomination are a good start, however, I have to ask (since, again, I am not a gamer and don't research these type of articles regularly), how many of the websites referenced
568:
pointing out other options before nominating for deletion, we really have nothing to talk about other than potential ways to improve the article. But like I said, this AfD has ultimately been beneficial for the article and as such, accomplished something positive, so there's no reason for berating
405:
If you are not a gamer then you should apply your beauracratic skills elsewhere. The number of results in a Google Search for a game that has just released would have obviously been low since the bot probably hadn't indexed the results. It is people like you that really piss me off. You people are
538:
I moved this from the talk page of this AfD. That being said, nominating something for AfD does not mean that someone has anything against the game. Just that they noticed it didn't meet GNG as it was written and nominated it. Also, before I edited the article extensively, there was a price point
453:
as to what the purpose of an encyclopedia is. It is certainly NOT to create notability, nor to sell video games. It's about building a better
Knowledge. Your rant and apparent "philosophy" does neither. Do us all a favor and look up the words "respect" and "consensus" in the dictionary, ~Regards
329:
before making the nomination. As I explained on the talk page, this is not the kind of article I would normally edit. In the thirty pages of my Google search, I found less than 7 mentions of the article's subject other than first-party webpages —hardly notable. The blatant sales pamphlet
763:, and several others are not. I'm not looking to split hairs. The point is that we're really stretching for sources to prove this game a notable entity worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If you are already convinced otherwise, there's nothing more to say here.
632:. This AfD is about whether or not an idea is notable for an encyclopedia article. Ask yourself what it does to show its notability. I pass no personal judgment on this game and its moment quite possibly might come in the future, but right now it is not notable.
788:
For the record, Joystiq and
Destructoid are also listed as potentially valid (though with caveats). The sources currently listed in the article demonstrate notability. The GNG makes no distinction between very notable and only moderately notable.
304:—Echoing the above sentiment, Tokyogirl79's alterations to the article effectively resolve the criticisms regarding the notability of the subject, and promotional quality of the original content, signifying that deletion is unreasonable.
343:(containing over-site, editorial review, etc.) — not just author opinions or fan sites? Or does that even matter in game articles? I leave it up to other editors out there who care about such articles to decide. I'm out...
508:
necessary and no monthly fee's apply, which perfectly whithin reason as this may not otherwise be clear as it is a MMORPG and these often differ in their payment systems, so as such it would be of interest to the reader.
166:
406:
unconstructive bureaucrats who think that pedantically following every rule in the book will make this place better, and are meddling in a field you have no knowledge of. I motion for a
693:
119:
410:
and further motion that this bureaucrat tender his resignation with immediate effect or at the very least, refrain from trying to "improve" gaming-related articles.
226:
160:
472:
regarding the character of his argument, the warning applies equally to anyone disparaging another editor as ignorant, and thereby disrupting this discussion.
214:
697:
685:
277:, almost a speedy keep. I can see that the article was in pretty bad shape when the AfD was created, but I suspect the nominator didn't follow
689:
126:
511:
All of this leads me to wonder whether you read the article as all, but rather just have a personal dislike for the game itself
668:
527:
388:
292:
17:
244:
415:
92:
87:
181:
96:
148:
377:
are all great in terms of editorial oversight and quality control. Not certain on all the rest, but I'm pretty sure
777:
646:
79:
883:
340:
232:
220:
40:
719:
479:
469:
435:
411:
311:
628:
sourcing. VG encyclopedia articles are for games that contribute to critical discourse about VG—Knowledge is
359:
696:, the project's reference library, its actual guidelines on the reliability of online and printed media is
142:
826:
714:
474:
430:
306:
57:
879:
621:
574:
548:
262:
36:
138:
515:
864:
847:
831:
798:
783:
725:
672:
652:
578:
552:
519:
485:
463:
441:
419:
392:
352:
317:
296:
266:
206:
61:
523:
174:
679:
459:
348:
202:
188:
821:
331:
53:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
878:
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
860:
794:
709:
629:
570:
544:
326:
285:'s excellent work. Promotional problems can be (and were) handled through normal editing. —
282:
278:
258:
593:
855:
per
Tokyogirl79's sourcing. Torchiest's suggestion regarding WP:BEFORE is a sound one. -
614:. Likewise Google hits ≠ notability (especially when they overlap with the better-known
592:
is just not established. Vast majority of the sources are not classified as reliable by
772:
663:
658:
641:
383:
287:
238:
154:
83:
684:
Sorry Czar, but you are straightforwardly mistaken in your interpretation of what the
589:
540:
455:
344:
198:
817:
688:
considers to constitute a reliable source, hence whether the article satisfies the
625:
113:
856:
790:
760:
616:
607:
378:
743:
I'm aware and meant RS, not RL. It was a slip on my part—thanks, fixed. A few (
842:
765:
634:
75:
67:
748:
744:
369:
756:
705:
603:
364:
503:"Non-Notable and is a PR piece; including pricing and download links."
197:
Non-Notable and is a PR piece; including pricing and download links.
596:(on a "game news" website ≠ corroboration). I'll say this again:
872:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
281:, as the article now has almost a dozen solid sources thanks to
752:
701:
598:
374:
755:) are listed as valid (though the last with a caveat), but
251:
109:
105:
101:
173:
447:
I will forgive your personal attack as the result of
325:, I am the nominator, and I certainly did process
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
886:). No further edits should be made to this page.
215:list of video game-related deletion discussions
712:companies that incorporate the same database.
187:
8:
213:Note: This debate has been included in the
357:I can answer your question about sources.
428:arguments during the discussion. Thanks,
243:
7:
468:Although I specifically cautioned
249:
24:
237:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
231:
865:14:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
848:20:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
832:00:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
799:14:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
784:23:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
726:23:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
700:, which explicitly includes
673:22:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
653:22:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
579:07:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
553:14:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
486:00:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
464:00:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
442:00:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
420:23:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
393:15:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
353:15:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
318:14:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
297:13:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
267:05:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
225:
207:18:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
62:17:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
690:general notability criteria
219:
903:
657:You should take a look at
612:the sources are not solid
875:Please do not modify it.
412:User:DiscipleOfKnowledge
32:Please do not modify it.
336:isn't even released yet
816:- Enough coverage in
708:, both of which are
588:. I read the above.
424:Please refrain from
692:. Whereas you cite
470:DiscipleOfKnowledge
334:about a game that
48:The result was
683:
620:). Notability is
532:
518:comment added by
269:
894:
877:
846:
845:
829:
824:
818:reliable sources
782:
780:
775:
770:
724:
722:
717:
710:News Corporation
677:
651:
649:
644:
639:
531:
512:
484:
482:
477:
450:simple ignorance
440:
438:
433:
316:
314:
309:
256:
255:
254:
247:
241:
235:
229:
223:
212:
192:
191:
177:
129:
117:
99:
34:
902:
901:
897:
896:
895:
893:
892:
891:
890:
884:deletion review
873:
841:
840:
827:
822:
778:
773:
766:
764:
720:
716:Mephistophelian
715:
713:
671:
647:
642:
635:
633:
630:not a directory
513:
480:
476:Mephistophelian
475:
473:
436:
432:Mephistophelian
431:
429:
391:
312:
308:Mephistophelian
307:
305:
295:
250:
218:
134:
125:
90:
74:
71:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
900:
898:
889:
888:
868:
867:
850:
834:
810:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
804:
803:
802:
801:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
667:
582:
581:
558:
557:
556:
555:
505:
504:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
398:
397:
396:
395:
387:
320:
299:
291:
271:
270:
195:
194:
131:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
899:
887:
885:
881:
876:
870:
869:
866:
862:
858:
854:
851:
849:
844:
838:
835:
833:
830:
825:
819:
815:
812:
811:
800:
796:
792:
787:
786:
785:
781:
776:
771:
769:
762:
758:
754:
750:
746:
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
727:
723:
718:
711:
707:
703:
699:
695:
691:
687:
681:
680:edit conflict
676:
675:
674:
670:
666:
665:
660:
656:
655:
654:
650:
645:
640:
638:
631:
627:
623:
619:
618:
613:
609:
605:
602:
600:
595:
591:
587:
584:
583:
580:
576:
572:
567:
563:
560:
559:
554:
550:
546:
542:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
529:
525:
521:
517:
509:
502:
501:
487:
483:
478:
471:
467:
466:
465:
461:
457:
452:
451:
446:
445:
443:
439:
434:
427:
423:
422:
421:
417:
413:
409:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
394:
390:
386:
385:
380:
376:
372:
371:
366:
362:
361:
356:
355:
354:
350:
346:
342:
337:
333:
328:
324:
321:
319:
315:
310:
303:
300:
298:
294:
290:
289:
284:
280:
276:
273:
272:
268:
264:
260:
253:
246:
240:
234:
228:
222:
216:
211:
210:
209:
208:
204:
200:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
128:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
874:
871:
852:
836:
823:Sergecross73
813:
767:
662:
636:
615:
611:
597:
585:
565:
561:
514:— Preceding
510:
506:
449:
448:
425:
407:
382:
368:
360:The Escapist
358:
335:
322:
301:
286:
274:
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
122:
54:SarahStierch
49:
47:
31:
28:
761:Destructoid
686:WikiProject
622:independent
617:World War Z
608:Destructoid
571:Tokyogirl79
545:Tokyogirl79
379:Destructoid
283:Tokyogirl79
259:Tokyogirl79
161:free images
843:User:Aneah
590:Notability
426:ad hominem
381:is good. —
880:talk page
721:(contact)
664:Torchiest
659:this list
520:Deltorant
481:(contact)
437:(contact)
384:Torchiest
327:WP:BEFORE
313:(contact)
288:Torchiest
279:WP:BEFORE
76:The War Z
68:The War Z
37:talk page
882:or in a
749:PC Gamer
745:PC World
698:WP:VG/RS
694:WP:VG/RL
626:reliable
594:WP:VG/RS
566:politely
528:contribs
516:unsigned
456:GenQuest
370:PC Gamer
345:GenQuest
341:reliable
199:GenQuest
120:View log
39:or in a
757:Joystiq
706:GameSpy
604:Joystiq
569:anyone.
365:Joystiq
323:Neutral
167:WP refs
155:scholar
93:protect
88:history
857:Thibbs
828:msg me
791:Thibbs
759:(x3),
586:Delete
541:WP:GNG
373:, and
139:Google
97:delete
669:edits
389:edits
332:clone
293:edits
182:JSTOR
143:books
127:Stats
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
861:talk
853:Keep
837:Keep
814:Keep
795:talk
768:czar
704:and
637:czar
575:talk
562:Keep
549:talk
524:talk
460:talk
416:talk
408:keep
349:talk
339:are
302:Keep
275:Keep
263:talk
252:Talk
203:talk
175:FENS
149:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
50:keep
753:IGN
702:IGN
599:IGN
418:)
375:IGN
217:. (
189:TWL
118:– (
863:)
797:)
751:,
747:,
624:,
610:,
606:,
577:)
551:)
530:)
526:•
462:)
444:.
367:,
363:,
351:)
265:)
257:)
245:RS
205:)
169:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
52:.
859:(
793:(
789:-
779:·
774:·
728:.
682:)
678:(
648:·
643:·
601:,
573:(
547:(
522:(
488:.
458:(
414:(
347:(
261:(
248:·
242:·
239:S
236:·
233:B
230:·
227:N
224:·
221:G
201:(
193:)
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
130:)
123:·
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.