Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond the Labyrinth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Deletion arguments are persuasive; however, sources have been added since the discussion has begun and enough good faith concerns have been raised on either side to make judging consensus difficult. If in a few months after release the game does not garner any press attention it may be worthwhile to revisit the debate. Protonk (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Beyond the Labyrinth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod, fails general notability requirements and also as it is a future release with no release date also fails WP:CRYSTAL Mo ainm~Talk 14:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I think there's more info out there that could be added to the article. It's just hasn't been added yet. (The article is mere hours old.) I'll try to work on it some... Sergecross73 msg me 19:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've added some more information to the article. The game is receiving significant coverage from many third party references (5+), and has notable game developers from other notable games. I'm sticking with my "keep" comment. Sergecross73 msg me 21:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is hardly significant coverage the 5 sources provided have in total 787 words, the sources all basically same the same thing that the game is being produced and that the authors know nothing about the game except that it is a dungeon role playing game. One source gives a wish list of what it hopes the characters can do, two of the sources claim that the game is only 60% complete, and they confirm that there is no release date yet for the game. So how does that meet WP:GNG or WP:CRYSTAL. Mo ainm~Talk 22:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll admit, not a whole lot is known, but still, reliable, third party sources are verifying what is known, there are articles dedicated to it, (not just passing mentions) and it has been officially announced. You're "crystal" issues would be more relevent if we were talking about a game that didn't have a name, or hadn't officially been announced. Neither of those are true here. Sergecross73 msg me 00:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is hardly significant coverage the 5 sources provided have in total 787 words, the sources all basically same the same thing that the game is being produced and that the authors know nothing about the game except that it is a dungeon role playing game. One source gives a wish list of what it hopes the characters can do, two of the sources claim that the game is only 60% complete, and they confirm that there is no release date yet for the game. So how does that meet WP:GNG or WP:CRYSTAL. Mo ainm~Talk 22:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep For games recently announced, having coverage from different 3rd party sources will be slim. If it was just announced within this week or so, then this is expected. A month or so, there should be a bit more. Not exactly in need of deletion but definitely in need of work. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that "it exists", and that this fact has been commented on by multiple secondary/tertiary sources, does not make it notable. There should be sources which have significant coverage of the game, which is impossible given how new the game is. The fact that it is also "to be released" without even an estimate of "when" also leans me toward citing WP:Crystal, as the OP has. As such, I think it should be deleted, with no prejudice toward recreation, or to moving it into userspace for now. I think the latter of the two would be best. --Izno (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not citing "exists" i'm citing notability, there is no Wikipedia placed cap for what is significant coverage, i'm using common sense in that it is a newly announced title, nevertheless a new IP. A quick google search shows a few sources [1] [2] actually do cover the game more thoroughly than the article does and have commentary about the game. But if the closing admin doesn't take that into consideration, userspacing is a fine alternative to deleting. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But all the sources are saying is that this game exists, this in no way is significant coverage that "address the subject directly in detail". Mo ainm~Talk 08:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Contrary to what Subzerosmokerain evidently thinks, saying "For games recently announced, having coverage from different 3rd party sources will be slim" is not a reason for keeping. If there is no substantial coverage in independent sources then it does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria, whatever the reason for the lack of such sources. If and when there is substantial coverage in third party reliable sources then it will be suitable for an article. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at his second post, I think what he was trying to say is that "significant" and "in-detail" are both subjective terms. I look at the five independent sources and say "that's significant". You look at the same thing and say it's not. It depends on interpretation... Sergecross73 msg me 12:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is nothing to do with what I was saying. I was not saying anything at all about whether or not the coverage was significant. I was simply explaining that if there is no substantial coverage there is no notability by Wikipedia's standards, whether or not the lack of such coverage is due to the game being "recently announced". JamesBWatson (talk) 11:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It just seemed like you were trying to discount him altogether, when he made two points, one invalid (the one you're talking about) and one valid point (the one I'm arguing in this debate.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct, the only thing in contest in the WP:GNG criteria is coverage, in which WP:N states as, ...sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Each source falls under more than a trivial mention for Beyond the Labyrinth as well as enough detail for a newly announced title; it's only a matter of deciding on whether or not five is enough for this article and since WP:N hasn't set a precedent, it's up to us to decide. Five is enough to me, but the article would benefit greatly from more research. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is nothing to do with what I was saying. I was not saying anything at all about whether or not the coverage was significant. I was simply explaining that if there is no substantial coverage there is no notability by Wikipedia's standards, whether or not the lack of such coverage is due to the game being "recently announced". JamesBWatson (talk) 11:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at his second post, I think what he was trying to say is that "significant" and "in-detail" are both subjective terms. I look at the five independent sources and say "that's significant". You look at the same thing and say it's not. It depends on interpretation... Sergecross73 msg me 12:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sources, notability aside, say the game is in production and none of them know anything about the game itself or when it will be released, in future this game will more than likely be notable but at present it is far from it. Mo ainm~Talk 14:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I have looked at all of the sources, and none of them gives substantial coverage. The reliability of the sources is also doubtful (one of them is a blog, for example). JamesBWatson (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - when is the distribution method cause to immediately dismiss something? None of these are first-party blogs, each is considered either reliable or situational per Wikiproject Video games. I'm not saying a particular blog post is reliable as it must be established by author, but it seems you're dismissing them (there are multiple sites that use blogs here) as unreliable due to the way the site is laid out. --Teancum (talk) 12:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to tri-Ace. Not really that notable. Not much is known about it, and a real article can not be written at this time. Until then, maybe merge the information to the developer's article. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/Merge to tri-Ace. I see several independent, reliable VG sources, with non-trivial coverage. That satisfies WP:GNG as far as notability goes, even if the article is a stub. However, as there is little content available, I believe the material is best presented in the developer's article until game's preview/release. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Have you seen the tri-Ace page? It's pretty rough. Mostly a short description and a list of all the games they've done by video game system platform. Seems like the content of this article would be kind of...awkward there. Sergecross73 msg me 18:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Mo ainm~Talk 20:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - A pre-release reception section has now been added by a user, with sourced reception. Sergecross73 msg me 01:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.