Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somari (5th nomination)

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. Jayjg (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somari

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Somari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not one single source is recognized as a reliable source, and it has no reception whatsoever. Relies heavily on user blogs and self-published content in order to source the article. The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The GamesRadar source is a step in the right direction, but as far as the GameSpy reference is concerned, who is "Fragmaster"? Is it an actual review by the site's staff (which they do), or is it a user-submitted review (which they also do)? It seems like the latter. –MuZemike 17:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There are currently only three sources that are considered reliable that make the slightest mention of Somari, and only one of them is a solid source that also goes into non-trivial detail on it. As such, the entire article would be based around one single source. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Gamespy: If you put use the search function of the site and search for Somari it says "author: staff" so it appears the article was written by the staff. Jiiimbooh (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While there isn't a ton of WP:RS, holy cow there surely seems to be an insane amount of buzz on other sites. IMO, this is one of those times when better judgement says that the title is notable, even if the New York Times hasn't covered extensively. Keeping within the spirit of the guidelines (and without even having to rely on WP:IAR) I think this is an acceptable subject. I notice this has gotten a lot of attention (5th AFD, wow...) but in the end, I think that if you follow the spirit of what we are trying to do at Wikipedia, there is plenty of room for this subject. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not an applicable reason to keep something, and it's not something we can measure. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 17:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are welcome to your opinion, but the guidelines are just that: guidelines. This means that it is expected that good judgement dictates when WP:IAR would apply. At the very heart of Wikipedia is the concept that if a guideline is in way of improving the encyclopedia, then it should be ignored. It this instance, it doesn't require ignoring very hard, considering the vast amount of coverage that the game has gotten, albeit not in reliable sources. Keeping it improves Wikipedia more than deleting it, so I am obligated to say keep. You are welcome to disagree on my interpretation of the guidelines, but the guidelines clearly indicate there are times when the !rules should be bent, and were designed specifically so they could be bent. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure how to write on this page but anyways....Every single source on this page was done by me. I searched the whole internet and these are the best I can find. If you want me to add reception section I can do that as well to but what do you expect IT'S A PIRATE GAME! IT WON'T HAVE THAT MANY RELIABLE SOURCES! If the page doesn't fit the po;licy help me change it! I tried to Wikify the article as much as I can. It be a lot better If I got some help....Radix Z

I searched every single reliable source that I could find and I could only find three sources - the two that Blake found and one from MTV Multiplayer. That is simply not enough to warrant an article. It's not a good idea to argue that it's effectively non-notable. As much as we would like to make this article work, you're asking us to put a square peg through a brick wall. It won't work. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no minimum number of sources that need to be cited to establish notability. WP:N suggests that "Multiple sources are generally expected," true, but three sources is multiple sources. Since Somari has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, we must presume that it satisfies the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. The burden is on the nom to prove that although the topic meets the notability criteria, it is nevertheless not appropriate for a stand-alone article. -Thibbs (talk) 00:07, 10 April 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) 20:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a well-known and notable pirate cart. There are RSes available that cover the game that could still be added to the article (e.g. [1]). I suggest we improve rather than delete the article. If Radix Z wants to improve the article then let's give him encouragement and help. -Thibbs (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are looking at a hack that is not acknowledged at any given point by its creators. What defines the notability of a pirate cart? Being covered in a single reliable source in non-trivial detail? As we can see, GamesRadar is the only reliable source that even provides meager coverage of the cart, as the GameSpy link does not qualify as a reliable source due to being not covered by GameSpy's editorial policy or process. As such, you are arguing that this article should be kept and sourced from one single source, which is simply not acceptable. And as for the notion that the article should be improved, again, square peg brick wall. How do you propose we improve it? I have checked every single source recognized as a reliable source for video games and found only one non-trivial mention. I provide no exaggeration when I say that it is impossible to improve this article without somehow causing the game to receive more attention. There is nothing to improve. This is only slightly more notable than any other rom hack. How do you propose that we help any more than we have? Please, provide even the slightest piece of advice as to what anyone can do to make this article notable. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK so according to what you've just said, the article is as well-written as it is possible to do so based on RSes and it is covered by at least one RS (earlier you acknowledged 3). The article's been up since 2003 and has survived multiple prior AfDs. With 300k+ Ghits, you've got to admit that the game is well-known or at least widely-discussed. If you're asking that the only well-written RS-based article on the internet be deleted based on the fact that 3 RSes isn't notability enough then I have to disagree.
        Another big problem is that the topic of pirate games and pirate carts and commercial rom hacks is quite clearly a notable topic that is lacking meaningful coverage on Wikipedia. Of the few examples of actually notable pirate versions, Somari is one of the best known. I could see an argument for merging this article into a general article on pirate NES carts or on video game piracy as a whole, perhaps, but such an article doesn't seem to exist. To simply delete this article seems like it would have more negatives for Wikipedia than positives. With this in mind, I'll modify my vote to "keep with the future possibility of a merge." -Thibbs (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • One other quick note: when you said "[Somari is] a hack that is not acknowledged at any given point by its creators," this isn't accurate. The game was produced in hard-copy with box-art and manuals. Team Someri definitely acknowledged the game. So on top of 3rd party RSes previously mentioned, the article could also presumably be improved by SPSes. -Thibbs (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Its creators" are the people who this hack comes from - Sega and Nintendo. There is stricter notability guidelines for something of this sort, merely being covered in one non-trivial source is not enough to warrant an article in a fan-made game when there's no acknowledgment by the creators of the inspiring work. Also, your argument seeks to say that because the larger topic of pirate rom hacks lacks coverage on Wikipedia, we must cover it with this article. What makes this special? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 14:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • No I'm saying that because the larger topic of pirate rom hacks lacks coverage on Wikipedia we cannot merge this article into that one. Given that there are few (although I still don't think too few) RSes covering Somari, I'd be open to the idea of a merge but sadly such an option is not available. So if the question is keep or delete then I say err on the side of caution and keep. If a future AfD is filed then perhaps the merge option would be available. -Thibbs (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            Also I see nothing in WP:N that requires a derivative work to be acknowledged by its originating source's creators. So Nintendo and Sega don't acknowledge the existence of unlicensed hacks of their works. So what? -Thibbs (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • My answer to "So what?" is to say that with such a subject, especially one that is hugely lacking in reliable sources, the fact that Nintendo and Sega give no acknowledgment to its existence makes it no more worthy of inclusion than basically every other ROM hack. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's an arbitrary stick to measure by. You're never going to find a company that discusses illegal hacks of its works unless you're talking about a lawsuit. Acknowledgment of the subject of a WP article by a specific source has never been a requirement for inclusion. The rule is that sources on a topic must be reliable not that they must come from closely-related companies. Why should the Somari article be held to a different standard than any other video game article? I'm pretty sure it shouldn't. -Thibbs (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You really ought to make sure that you aren't arguing for different standards. Somari is not a video game, it is a hack of a video game. A hack that has been mentioned in a non-trivial sense in one single reliable source out there. The standards we use for video game articles do not apply to Somari because often, we look at video games, especially retail ones, with a presumption that they have some notability, which is why we have many articles on games that lack references - because they probably have some. We do not use this lenient view on video games for hacks because they are NOT presumed notable. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well that has nothing to do with the inappropriate requirement you're seeking to impose on pirate games that they must be acknowledged by the company/companies that are being ripped off. I also disagree that retail video games are presumptively notable. Regarding Somari, I see upwards of 5 RSes now (after what Jiiimbooh posted below) and while the sources aren't as stellar as they are for some other games, I still think that the clear renown of the game (see 300k+ Ghits comment above) argues for the fact that Wikipedia would not be improved by deleting this article but instead it would be a net negative. -Thibbs (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not arbitrary. It is, not at any point, inappropriate to say that a fan game should have some acknowledgment that it exists - especially when the fan game's non-trivial coverage in reliable sources rounds down to zero. Also, besides the fact that Google hits are never a good reason to make an article about something, you do realize that Somari is not just a fan-made rom hack, right? If we search for "Somari -Sonic -Mario -forums -boards -youtube" we lose 100,000 hits and are at about 250,000. Searching "Somari Mario Sonic" returns 38,500 hits. After removing forums, boards, and youtube from the equation, we have 7,730 results. Searching in the Google Search Engine that only displays reliable sources on video games brings only five URLs - one is a user video, and four are the same source repeated four times. Basically if you are looking at JUST Google hits, you have 340,000. If you are discerning and not indiscriminately assuming every site found on Google is usable as evidence of this article's notability, there are five. As for the below mentioned sources, it is not demonstrative of a notable subject when two of the sources are brief mentions as he explicitly states and one is not verified as a reliable source. Notability is not based on "how many reliable sources mention a subject", it's about finding sources that mention them in a non-trivial detail. Most of the sources simply acknowledge that it exists, not that it is important. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I never said it's inappropriate to require RSes. I said it's inappropriate to require acknowledgment from Nintendo and Sega. I stand by that. So we both agree that there are few RSes that exist covering Somari and we both agree that of these few, fewer yet cover it in a non-trivial manner. What we are left with is that you think that the RSes are insufficient to demonstrate notability and on the other hand I think that they do just barely demonstrate notability especially when the general renown of the topic is taken into account. So it's just a judgment call that we fall on opposite sides of. -Thibbs (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article would have no significant coverage from reliable sources without GamesRadar. Effectively, this article will depend solely on GamesRadar with the other sources merely giving acknowledgment to it. There are only three sources that can even be used, and two of them are brief mentions. I would hardly look at a couple of brief mentions and a more significant mention as being enough to make a type of game that is given extreme scrutiny and is assumed non-notable unless otherwise proven. The fact of the matter is that even a digital download on WiiWare has more presumed notability, because it is sold through an official channel that is frequented regularly, whereas Somari is obtained only by those scouring the web. It's not "out in the open" like retail games, so why should it have the same standard as them? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes I'm aware that we disagree about whether the RSes are sufficient. No need to continue hammering that point. It's a difference of opinion. Neither one of us is objectively "wrong" on that issue. As for why all articles are held to the same standards, the reason is that Wikipedia isn't censored. We apply the same rules to all articles regardless of our personal distaste for the topics. If we're applying specialized inclusion criteria to individual articles in order to give ourselves a reason to vote "delete" then it's just the same thing as saying I don't like it. -Thibbs (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • It has nothing to do with WP:IDONTLIKEIT; if it did, I would not have created Pixel Force: Left 4 Dead, which actually did receive significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Applying stricter standards to fan-works is not censorship, it's common sense. It's no more censorship than deleting a fanfiction about Mario and Sonic. A notable fan-made ROM hack is the exception to the general rule that ROM hacks are not notable. When an article on a fan-made game is created, it is immediately considered non-notable if it lacks reception, which this subject does. There is no difference of opinion in these. Why is the Spanish site a reliable source? And why is the GameSpy source, which is a part of GameSpy's series of fan sites, a reliable source? Why are the mentions in the MTV and Siliconera web sites considered non-trivial? Just because you disagree does not entail you to simply say that they are non-trivial without explaining. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • If you create new ad-hoc policies and guidelines on the fly that only apply to the article you're seeking to delete then it looks indistinguishable from IDONTLIKEIT. You claim that one of the requirements for Somari (and only Somari) is that it has to have been acknowledged by Nintendo and/or Sega. That is incorrect no matter how you look at it. Fan-works often fail WP:N. Nobody has to make up additional requirements in order to vote "delete." Your argument that Somari's sources fail to demonstrate notability is valid. I disagree with it, but it's valid. Your argument that special new requirements should be applied to Somari alone (or possibly with other members of a class you have lumped Somari into) is quite invalid. -Thibbs (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You also asked about why I thought the RSes were sufficient. First I'll assume that we agree that the GamesRadar source is fine. Beyond that I see trivial to borderline-significant coverage in the other RSes. Taken as a whole and in light of the obvious renown of the game within the rest of the non-RS internet, I think there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate Notability. It's a borderline case but as I said earlier, I'll err on the side of caution in this case. -Thibbs (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to somewhere. There should totally be one on hacks, and if there's not, then I'm going to create one. Doesn't seem to pass WP requirements for Wikipedia and stuff, but it's a shame to allow such an article be lost forever. Harry Blue5 (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it could be redirected to Sonic the Hedgehog (series) and protected. That way the history won't be lost for if this does somehow become notable, but nobody will be able to create it without first contacting an admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blake (talk • contribs)
  • Delete – I have to agree with NARH here, there is not a single reliable source out there, nor nothing much even halfway reliable to build an article from. Having looked at the above reasons for retention as well as the others from the previous AFDs, I was surprised to see it kept on such flimsy rationales (but then again the last deletion discussion on this was from 2007, which was also improperly closed BTW, so perhaps it was expected). –MuZemike 15:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – per MuZemike and Thumperward. Plus, all those afds and still the articles condition has not improved enough. If the needed sources can be found somehow to build a sound article, then try so in a sandbox. Edit: « ₣M₣ » 21:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment These sources showed up in a Google News Search and aren't in the article: mtv news (only brief mention), 3djuegos (Spanish) Siliconera (only brief mention). [EDIT:Corrected name of website] Jiiimbooh (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't believe that 3ejuegos is a reliable source. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid I don't consider those substantive enough to establish notability you got a mention in one and a picture of it in another. That's nowhere close to significant coverage. –MuZemike 17:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Spanish goes into more detail, but I'm not sure it's reliable. I was hoping a Spanish gamer or someone else would know. These sources were also meant to be a compliment to the sources already mentioned or listed in the article. Jiiimbooh (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • For the record: "Since January 2010, 3DJuegos has been the most frequently visited gaming magazine in Spain according to data controlled by the Office of Justification for Distribution (OJD), with 3.8 million unique users, 6.3 million visits and 29.8 million page views for that month." This info comes from the Spanish article, but it's properly sourced and verifiable. The magazine describes itself as a team of journalists and professionals ("Un equipo de periodistas y profesionales") on its website. 3DJuegos is widely cited on es.wiki and even to a small degree on pt.wiki. -Thibbs (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, that's entirely useful information - THe use of 3DJuegos would be great on some articles I'm working on. However, the point is moot - even two sources is not enough. You're discussing the arbitrary nature of some of the arguments, yet you attempt to arbitrarily say that the number of sources is what makes the article worth existing, when the sources, for the most part, give very limited coverage of it. By the way, I removed all sources with the exception of 3D Juegos, GamesRadar, and Siliconera. None of the other sources fulfilled Wikipedia's Reliable sources or Verifiability policies. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • There's nothing arbitrary about voting keep on an topic whose notability is demonstrated by multiple RSes. I'll assume good faith here, but your removal of those sources shows questionable judgment. Several of them (e.g. Screw Attack and Atari HQ) show up on WP:VG/RS without either the "X"-mark for "no" or the "!!!"-mark for "limited use." At best we can say that there's no consensus that they're reliable but that doesn't automatically make them "unusable sources." It just means that no discussion has taken place regarding them yet. Incidentally, other sources you've rejected as unreliable also appear on that list (e.g. 3D Juegos). -Thibbs (talk) 03:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • If no discussion exists on them, it does not make them usable. If you look at the link shown next to Screw Attack, it reads from one prominent editor of WP:VG/RS: "I don't remember where the past discussion is archived, but I believe any Screwattack show published on GameTrailers.com is acceptable. But generally they should be avoided. Someone else may want to chime in about this though." But that is moot, since it is a user blog, not a staff blog. Being on WP:VG/RS indicates that they exist - not that they are reliable or unreliable unless otherwise noted. Basically, in looking at those three web sites you mentioned, ask yourself this: would this article pass GA with these sources without any verification of their usability as a reliable source? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. Again, what would happen if this went to GA? By the fact that it could not pass GA with unverified sources, they cannot be used. Why not throw forums up that aren't verified either? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Things don't become reliable just because they're discussed. They're either reliable or not and the discussion is only a means of determining that fact. If a discussion on 3D Juegos is held and the consensus is that it's reliable then presumably it's always been reliable. It didn't only become reliable when Wiki editors discussed it. If an article was being held back from GA status only because it relied heavily on such a source then I imagine that a discussion would take place regarding the source. GA status wouldn't be withheld forever due to uncertainty about the RS status of the reference. We don't use forums because they are essentially never reliable. You'll notice that no forums are listed at WP:VG/RS. In fact that list isn't a list of every gaming-related website on the internet. It's just a list of sources that editors believe might be RSes but that haven't been discussed yet. Why you would strip sources that might be RSes (with an edit summary claiming that they have been "identified as unreliable") from an article you have nominated for deletion is beyond me. -Thibbs (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we keep the hair splitting down to nonexistence? Yes, they are either reliable or not. And Wikipedia uses 100% reliable, 0% unverified, 0% unreliable. The whole point of using only reliable sources is because we can actually verify if the information is accurate. Explain to me, right now, how we can verify the validity or accuracy of one single source that I removed. There is no guideline or policy that suggests that a source may be used if it "seems" like it's reliable, or "hasn't been proven" unreliable. The very first line of the RS guideline reads: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources". It doesn't say "and sources that could be reliable but we're not sure". And as for your comment, it would be withheld if we had no idea the validity of sources. That is how the GA process works. If a source is questionable, the nominator either demonstrates that they are known for their accuracy, editorial policy, and fact checking, the source is removed due to lack of the above mentioned elements, or the GA nomination fails for lack of cooperation in using only verified reliable sources. There is no entitlement to use a source that is not verified as reliable just because it might be reliable in theory. If we do not know if a web site is reliable, then how is it any different than a source that we know is unreliable? How can we use a source that we don't know is trustworthy? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I removed the Spanish source, as it was clearly from a forum. You really need to actually look at the sources instead of just listing them without any context. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • With so many sources stripped out it makes most of this AfD look like nonsense to a newcomer. Why so much discussion of whether the sources are RSes or not? There are no sources. Someone's deleted them all after nominating the article for AfD on a claim that they have been identified (possibly by he himself) as unreliable. Again I'm not so familiar with AfD. Maybe this is normal but it sure looks shabby. Anyway I'm retiring from this discussion. We're just going around in circles at this point. -Thibbs (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a final response, Thibbs, this discussion goes in circles because that is what you lead it in. Instead of properly explaining why one single source removed should remain, you make thinly veiled accusations of bad faith and argue that because a source could, in theory, be reliable, it should be included anyway. For the closing administrator, I hope that you take into account not the number of people voting keep or delete, but rather, the arguments. Can an article sustain itself with one single non-trivial reliable source? Can that one source manage to verify all of the unverified content in the article? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look, I apologize if you feel I've assumed bad faith. I've seen you edit and I'm sure you do have Wikipedia's best interests at heart. It just seems that your edits that stripped sources were inappropriate. I'm certain you meant no harm and it's quite possibly within the rules for AfD, but if it is then I think it shouldn't be. Anyway I'm sorry if you felt attacked. It was not intended personally. -Thibbs (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep You know there is something wrong when the Delete votes say, here are two good sources but delete. Sources so far: the eight in the article (including ScrewAttack, Kosmix, TGWTG), the two from Blake (including GamesRadar) the three from Jiiimbooh, (including MTV News) and here's another: NES/Famicom Piracy at 1Up.com. Sources matter; everything else is just talk.
AFD quotes that prove piracy is evil and must be stopped by any means necessary, especially when I don't profit from it personally:
AFD #Whatever it actually was (2nd nomination):
"Delete, possible Speedy - Somari only returns 225 000 hits on Google[1]. --Kuroki Mio 2006 19:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)"
Stealth Keep vote or just WTF? 225k hits...
(4th nomination): Nominator:
"Lets say I wanted to transfer a Genesis game to NES the same way Somari did, and I changed the characters to whatever I wanted and retitled the game and gave it to the video game pirating people, would that mean that my game deserves an article?"...
(5th nomination)
"Delete - No evidence of notability. I found two good sources, but..."
Anarchangel (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But on the other hand, the rationales for retention in the previous AFD include 'there might be reliable sources out there' as in the 4th AFD (as well as one based on a personal attack), merely saying it's notable without checking for sources in any detail as in the 3rd and 2nd AFDs, and, well, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somari is from 2004, which I think is going a bit far back (we're basically talking about an entirely different environment back then). Anyhow, perhaps arguments on both sides in the previous AFDs were rather poor and didn't concentrate on anything substantive. Basically, I want coverage on the game itself from only a couple of reliable sources and not just a mere one-sentence mention or photo of the game. There is one that was mentioned above which might, and I might reconsider my !vote if a second one can be found. –MuZemike 17:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the sources that you found are not reliable sources. The Guy With the Glasses is not considered reliable, the 1UP.com source is a blogentry from a user, and Kosmik and ScrewAttack are not considered reliable. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That Guy with the Glasses is a famous reviewer and his show has its own IMDb entry, something most Internet shows don't. Even though I agree a mention by him isn't enough by itself it should still count for something. His review was quite detailed. Jiiimbooh (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A famous person is not a reliable person. TGWTG should never be used under any circumstance as a reliable source, ever. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least his opinion about the game could be used in the article. Reception is usually a part of a movie/book/game article. The fact that a famous reviewer has written about the game adds to its notability. Jiiimbooh (talk) 05:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being famous does not make a source reliable. If a source is not reliable, it cannot be used. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how he isn't reliable when it comes to his own opinions. Jiiimbooh (talk) 07:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we are arguing that since he's only giving opinions he is reliable, wouldn't that mean that any single person can qualify? That is not how reliable sources work. TGWTG is generally a humorous reviewer - as such, his opinions are muddled and cannot be used consistently. Can you verify that TGWTG has a "reputation for accuracy and fact checking"? Simply being famous does not entail that your opinions are able to be used in any way anywhere on Wikipedia. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we are arguing that since he's only giving opinions he is reliable, wouldn't that mean that any single person can qualify?
True, but not every single person's opinions are interesting for Wikipedia's readers. I would argue that That Guy with the Glasses' opinion on the game is far more interesting than for example my opinion, since I'm not a well-known reviewer. I don't think that he's humorous should disqualify him outright. Jiiimbooh (talk) 07:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being of interest to readers does not mean that the editor is considered reliable. Again, unless you can demonstrate that he has a "reputation for accuracy and fact checking", this argument is moot. TGWTG cannot be considered a reliable source. It can be considered a funny source, an interesting source, and a famous source. But not reliable. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is remarkable how complicated people make AfD sometimes. Sporadic discussion of something over the Internet is not enough for it to have an article here: that applies to hacked game cartridges as much as anything else. MAME supports 10,000 different ROM sets, many of which are bootlegs or hacks of some other description: how many of them do you think are notable? As far as Wikipedia is concerned, it is irrelevant if the tree which falls in the forest makes a sound if it is not covered by reliable sources. If we have exactly one of those which gives non-trivial coverage to this particular game then it just about warrants a mention on one or two of our existing articles overlapping the topic (piracy, gaming in the Far East, ROM hacks: take your pick), but certainly not its own article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Several good sources. EDIT: Non-trivial mentions: Gamespy, gamesradar, Atari hq. Brief mentions: Wired, mtv news, Siliconera The game has also reviewed by That Guy with the Glasses. Jiiimbooh (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per NARH arguments. Sergecross73 msg me 15:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's just a huge shame that most admins will close this discussion as no consensus due to a combination of the very close "vote" count and not wanting to make a judgment call, rather than closing as delete simply because of all of one source that could be usable in this article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think we all agreed on Gamesradar and 3DJuegos as significant coverage in reliable sources. I also found some evidence indicating that the Somari article in Gamespy was written by the staff, so now we're up to three. That's not counting the brief mentions in MTVNews and Siliconera. I also think mentioning That Guy with the Glasses under "Reception" would be ok but I know you disagree with that. There might also be reliable offline sources, such as magazines, especially since this game was made in the 90s. That any reliable online sources mentions the game at all points to it having an enduring legacy in gaming circles. Jiiimbooh (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do I need to again repeat to you that the 3DJuegos source was a forum post? The fact that so few reliable sources acknowledge that this game exists does not inspire confidence that print sources, which are far more discerning with what content they include on their pages, pays any mind to this either. Even if the GameSpy source is considered reliable, that is two reliable sources that cover it in a non-trivial basis that the article is based on. If this is a new threshold for fan-made games, then I think that the Wikipedia is in trouble. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Now I found this source Atari hq (article linked from Wired). Atari hq staff. I think this source should count as reliable, so now we're up to three reliable sources again, plus a brief mention in Wired. Atari hq was previously in the article but I didn't take a look at the staff before. Jiiimbooh (talk) 09:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • The source tells us nothing of who wrote it. Who is Jinnai Zenjirou, for example? If it was, for example, the author of the article, it would make the article questionable. Simply being a reliable source (or in this case I'd say situational source) doesn't really cut it. We would occasionally overlook such an action in a web site with a more well-known track record (such as IGN, which has a lot of older articles without specific writing credits). However, this web site is not known for editorial oversight or the staffing of reliable people. As a reliable source, we would only be able to use content created by definitively reliable people. For example, while a web site may staff a bunch of unreliable upstarts, the editor in chief could be a very well-known and respected member of the industry. As such, any article written by that person would be considered reliable without the general web site being considered reliable. You have to ask yourself this: Do you think that each and every source that would be utilized in the Somari article would pass GA standards? Do you believe that this one, with its decidedly high level of informality and lack of attribution would be considered verifiable? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • You're trying to undermine the verifiability of a respected source. Do you have any evidence this source isn't to be trusted? Your comment hasn't provided any. You have suspicions, wp doesnt operate on suspicions. I'll take the source at face value unless you demonstrate otherwise. Szzuk (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BURDEN. You're trying to force me to prove evidence that hasn't been proven good, bad. Is there any evidence that this is not a user posting content? Nope. Is there evidence that any fact checking occurred with this article? Nope. Does the web site have any evidence that it has any editorial policy? Nope. Why would you take a sketchy source on face value? We have absolutely NO idea who wrote this content, and that face value comes off as good to you? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, impossible to source reliably. Andrevan@ 11:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundant delete votes above. User Jiiimbooh has located two articles at IGN and Wired that demonstrate notability amply. There may be others, I didn't read much of the conversation and don't need to, I know verifiable sources when I see them. Szzuk (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why am I only hearing about these IGN sources now? I just searched the entire IGN web site and there are seven mentions - five from user posts and two from user FAQs. And the Wired link is evidence that Somari exists. Kohler does not, at any point, make anything even remotely resembling commentary on Somari's existence. A lot of people seem to think that Wikipedia's policy on sourcing is based around numbers. As in, if one finds five sources, one wins! Well, it does not work that way. The GamesRadar link and to a lesser extent the GameSpy link are usable. The MTV one is also usable, but covers Somari in very little detail and enhances the article in a very small way, and the Siliconera link is a situational source and one that only gives brief trivial commentary on the appearance of the cover art. And the Atari HQ link, as mentioned above, has no way of determining its author, any fact checking whatsoever, and any editorial policy whatsoever (WP:VG/RS does not even acknowledge any usability of the web site in the first place, so I have no idea where anyone is getting that the site is necessarily usable). Maybe you should read a discussion before you comment on it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe you should step back from the conversation and take another look, you're too involved to be objective. Szzuk (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can you please refute my arguments instead of dancing around them? Again, you clearly have no grasp of this discussion if you are arguing that anyone posted IGN links as reliable sources here. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • You've made so many comments in this afd I don't think you would consider other possibilities. So i'll just wish you a good day! Szzuk (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Clearly, you have no intent on contributing to this conversation in a way that would enhance it in any way, shape or form. You should not have participated in an AfD discussion if you have no intent of defending your arguments. If you have no intent of defending them, then I contend that your arguments hold no weight, especially since I successfully refuted them in the first place. It's a shame that someone with your experience on the Wiki would act in such a disruptive manner. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes I am an experienced editor. That is why I'm pointing out to the closing admin you've made so many comments you have biased the debate. I really have nothing else to say now. Szzuk (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Great to know that an experienced editor is putting that experience to work by distracting editors from the actual discussion at hand. The fact that every response you've made to anything I've said has been "lolol bias" tells me that your attitude cannot possibly be overwhelmed by your contributions to Wikipedia. Please affirm to me that the next AfD you participate in will not be a repeat of your embarrassing edits in this one. We do not need people acting in such a disruptive manner without contributing in any way to the discussion. I hope that the closing admin makes note of this user's actions - and notice that after I demonstrated why the source of Atari HQ was iffy as he requested, he refused to discuss it in any way and rather made attacks instead. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But I'll be swell and give you another opportunity to refute my claims. I claimed that because Atari HQ's article does not attribute the author or demonstrate any fact checking or editorial oversight for any articles, it is far too iffy to be used as a source. As such, I've succeeded in demonstrating why it should not be use. Do you have anything to rebut what I say? Or are you going to accuse me of bias (even though my edit history not only demonstrates no bias against such games, but bias FOR these games, with the creation of Pixel Force: Left 4 Dead)? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Links above establish a level of notoriety, this seems marginally notable - although it might be worth merging to a list of Rom hacks article. I think there's some confusion as to how reliable sources relate to notability. You do not need a source to demonstrate that he has a "reputation for accuracy and fact checking" to show notability of a subject. Glenn Beck has no such reputation - but had he dedicated a a column of his website to Somari, it'd be notable. - hahnchen 23:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've run across a few more non-trivial sources. First of all, a popular Russian gaming magazine, Great Dragon (Великий Dракон), ran an in-depth review of the game (Magazine No.20, ISSN:0868-5967) in the early 1990s (Oct. 10, 1995) under its "Dendy Game Room" subsection. Secondly, the game was reviewed in Season 1, Episode 11 of the Russian TV show, "Dendy: The New Reality" (Dendy Novaya Realnost). Details including the video clip can be found here. Remember also that a topic's notability requires only that RSes exist, not that they are immediately cited. Just because details of the article aren't covered by third-party sources doesn't mean SPSes such as the instruction manuals, etc. that came with the Somari cart can't be used to source the details of the article. As Hahnchen point out, Notability guidelines provide a threshold for inclusion. They don't strictly limit content within the article to reliable third party sources. -Thibbs (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not my usual subject, but judging on the principles that would apply to any article, Thibbs has shown sufficient references for WP:N. Whether the conventional standards of WP:N are relevant for this subject field may well be another question, but in any case, for any intellectual or artistic product, reviews establish notability . DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I feel that his has shown notability, the notion that there is any question that WP:N is relevant to this subject is silly. If WP:N doesn't apply, how do we know what is warranting inclusion on Wikipedia? Or do we just include all games of its kind? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • My take on what DGG is saying that you have to sometimes look at the spirit of WP:N and WP:V, and balance that with the reality that the NYTimes may not cover these topics. We are having the same issue at MyBB, where the software is obviously notable, but difficult to prove in traditional RS style sources. In these cases, you have to use some judgement, and if all else fails, ignore all rules because the inclusion of the article clearly is better for Wikipedia than deletion. This is certainly within the spirit of the guidelines, and exactly why IAR exists. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd have to strongly disagree with that. To IAR on notability should be reserved only for types of articles that are obviously notable. Fan remakes and ROM hacks are not only not presumed to be notable, but they are even presumed to be not notable because most aren't. If it was lacking the sources that establish the notability, pulling an IAR would just set precedent to have every single person who's ever made a fan game go on Wikipedia and spam them and say "well it's obviously notable". The only reason that this article DOES pass is because it's covered in enough reliable sources to do so. To say that it doesn't even need to pass is setting a bad precedent that doesn't need to be set. In this case, it either has sources and is kept or it doesn't and is deleted. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. At the very least, the discussion has become so muddled, I can't find a blinding argument or consensus to delete.--Milowent • talkblp-r 10:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, why are these AfDs still open for so long? Its the 5th nom, its not a delete once again, life goes on, but this litter of super-long AfDs is horrible!--Milowent • talkblp-r 04:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because if you end it as 'no consensus' or 'keep' before everyone that cares has the opportunity to chime in, someone will just renominate it again in a day or two. Better to let these contentious AFDs play out over a longer period of time, to build a stronger consensus, one way or another. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:19, 21 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Somari_(5th_nomination)&oldid=1138777901"