Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Warfare (Kabam)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Global Warfare (Kabam) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find video game sources: "Global Warfare (Kabam)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)
Contested PROD, rationale was "WP:NN product. A great example of why Wikipedia needs a speedy deletion criterion for articles about products that do not assert the product's notability or importance.". Listing here due to lack of notability which I doubt sourcing could really solve. tutterMouse (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: as a product that fails WP:GNG. Toddst1 (talk) 01:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: as a game that fails WP:GNG fpr products. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Did any of you actually look for sources? [1][2][3][4][5]([6]). All WP:VG/RS. Passes GNG with multiple independent reliable non-trivial coverage sources. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your "did any of you look for sources" indignancy would hold if you hadn't included at least one press release amongst your "reliable sources". You've also cited a source that doesn't discuss this game at all ([7]) and a puff piece based entirely on an interview with Kabam's general manager. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd argue the "puff piece" counts quite nicely toward WP:N. A reliable source doing an interview with a source to discuss something the source is working on is generally just fine. We have interviews with actors and directors all the time as RSes about a movie or TV show. The PR piece clearly is bogus though. Still, it appears 3 people didn't go looking for sources, didn't find them or felt they weren't enough somehow and so !voted to delete here. That's not good. You really shouldn't !vote in an AfD without looking at or looking for sources. Hobit (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It could equally be said that nor should you !vote keep "per sources" without carefully reading the sources presented. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looked at 3. They were enough, didn't really need to look at the rest as WP:N was met. But yeah, I should have clarified I'd only looked at some of them. Hobit (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It could equally be said that nor should you !vote keep "per sources" without carefully reading the sources presented. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So including sources for some more content beyond GNG somehow disqualifies the actual sources for GNG? I even put the press release in brackets for this very reason. It took me less that 30 seconds to come up with at least three sources from what are reliable video game review sites. Of course I asked why three editors couldn't find any sources. The nominator even expressed desire for a CSD case on this. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for disclosure, I wasn't the original person who PRODded the article, that was User:Toddst1 and I did check for sourcing before making this nom and found them slightly lacking for some of the reasons Mkativerata has with them. I'd be happy to withdraw the nom if better sourcing can be found but I don't think some of these sources are reliable enough and others which are not talking about the game itself but the developer. tutterMouse (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd argue the "puff piece" counts quite nicely toward WP:N. A reliable source doing an interview with a source to discuss something the source is working on is generally just fine. We have interviews with actors and directors all the time as RSes about a movie or TV show. The PR piece clearly is bogus though. Still, it appears 3 people didn't go looking for sources, didn't find them or felt they weren't enough somehow and so !voted to delete here. That's not good. You really shouldn't !vote in an AfD without looking at or looking for sources. Hobit (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your "did any of you look for sources" indignancy would hold if you hadn't included at least one press release amongst your "reliable sources". You've also cited a source that doesn't discuss this game at all ([7]) and a puff piece based entirely on an interview with Kabam's general manager. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2012 (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) 18:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources. Ouch. Hobit (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per sources by Hellknowz. Plenty of third party coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 21:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm seeing press releases and sources that look like blogs or community based content sites—not what I call reliable. Pol430 talk to me 23:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Only sources 1, 2 and 3 presented by Hellknowz don't obviously fail the dodginess test. Sources 1 to 3 are marginal themselves. They are short, colloquially-written reviews, often in the first person, containing spelling and grammatical errors, that aren't the sober assessments of the game that one would expect from a genuinely reliable source. After reading the sources, we still don't know a number of basic facts about the game, such as how many people use it? That's why we can't rely solely on these kinds of reviews as "significant coverage in reliable sources". Significant coverage would give us the important facts rather than high-level poorly written opinions about the game's playability. Seen in that context, the coverage isn't significant at all. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. The coverage is in reliable sources that have been vetted in the past. And you feel they don't provide coverage of a caliber required because some are in first person and don't cover certain facts you'd like? Only 6 is actually problematic as a PR bit. That's a really really high bar you are manufacturing. Your right to expect that high a bar I suppose, but (much) more than 90% of WP doesn't have 5 sources. Hobit (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean "vetted"? What "high bar" are you talking about? The bar set by WP:RS is "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I hardly think opinion pieces riddled with spelling and grammatical errors are going to meet that. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I now know what you mean by vetting: WP:VG/RS. That's written by a wikiproject. Frequently that wikiproject tries to peddle sources like these dodgy reviews at FAC as reliable and frequently gets shot down. See for example Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pokémon Red and Blue/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess/archive2. Proper vetting, like the vetting at FAC, frequently finds these kind of sources to be below the mark. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviews are opinion pieces. That does not make them a non-RS. I only read the first FAC review and don't think they got "shot down". Could you please specify the spelling an grammar errors that seem to be bothering you? Hobit (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from the generally awful writing, specific examples of errors include (at least one for each of sources 1-3) "range of untis", "Any players or alliance of players can attempt", "a massively multiplayer social game", "The biggest gameplay addition in Global Warfare is existence of strategic resources", "providing a higher level of competition between players, as well cooperation between allied players", and "Two hundred cash will run you $20." It's vomit. A source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy would not be so poorly written. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Disappointing typos/wording aside, both IGN and Gamezebo are recognized as reliable sources at Wikiproject Video games - See WP:VG/S. Whether you like the "writing style" or not, there is coverage in what is considered reliable, third party sources. Sergecross73 msg me 18:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A wikiproject does not have the capacity to define for the rest of the project what are and are not reliable sources. The evidence here strongly suggests that in respect of the six sources given by Hellknowz, the wikiproject has got it wrong. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you're free to have your opinion, I'm just pointing out to the closing admin that there's currently a consensus there against what you're saying saying about those sources. Sergecross73 msg me 19:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is really a concern regarding sources such as IGN and Gamezebo it should be brought up at WP:RSN because if a WikiProject can't determine if a source is reliable or not a single editor who disagrees with the sources should defently not be making that determination.--70.24.207.225 (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you're free to have your opinion, I'm just pointing out to the closing admin that there's currently a consensus there against what you're saying saying about those sources. Sergecross73 msg me 19:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A wikiproject does not have the capacity to define for the rest of the project what are and are not reliable sources. The evidence here strongly suggests that in respect of the six sources given by Hellknowz, the wikiproject has got it wrong. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Disappointing typos/wording aside, both IGN and Gamezebo are recognized as reliable sources at Wikiproject Video games - See WP:VG/S. Whether you like the "writing style" or not, there is coverage in what is considered reliable, third party sources. Sergecross73 msg me 18:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from the generally awful writing, specific examples of errors include (at least one for each of sources 1-3) "range of untis", "Any players or alliance of players can attempt", "a massively multiplayer social game", "The biggest gameplay addition in Global Warfare is existence of strategic resources", "providing a higher level of competition between players, as well cooperation between allied players", and "Two hundred cash will run you $20." It's vomit. A source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy would not be so poorly written. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviews are opinion pieces. That does not make them a non-RS. I only read the first FAC review and don't think they got "shot down". Could you please specify the spelling an grammar errors that seem to be bothering you? Hobit (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I now know what you mean by vetting: WP:VG/RS. That's written by a wikiproject. Frequently that wikiproject tries to peddle sources like these dodgy reviews at FAC as reliable and frequently gets shot down. See for example Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pokémon Red and Blue/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess/archive2. Proper vetting, like the vetting at FAC, frequently finds these kind of sources to be below the mark. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean "vetted"? What "high bar" are you talking about? The bar set by WP:RS is "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I hardly think opinion pieces riddled with spelling and grammatical errors are going to meet that. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. The coverage is in reliable sources that have been vetted in the past. And you feel they don't provide coverage of a caliber required because some are in first person and don't cover certain facts you'd like? Only 6 is actually problematic as a PR bit. That's a really really high bar you are manufacturing. Your right to expect that high a bar I suppose, but (much) more than 90% of WP doesn't have 5 sources. Hobit (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Sources provided are reliable and significant enough to establish notabliity. --MuZemike 19:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 07:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are three sources in the article, GameZebo (major casual game review site), IGN (one of the two major Stateside video game sites, the other being GameSpot), and one from Venture Beat where the writer's credentials are "Dean previously worked at the San Jose Mercury News, the Wall Street Journal, the Red Herring, the Los Angeles Times, the Orange County Register and the Dallas Times Herald." I see no issue with notability here. Someoneanother 18:24, 13 January 2012 (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.