Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstellar Marines (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Notability is now fulfilled. m.o.p 07:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interstellar Marines

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A game that hasn't been released yet being manufactured by a non-notable company. Declined PROD. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice against making in the future once the game is released and has received multiple reviews from WP:RS. Right now, we are WP:CRYSTAL. For the first game of a new company, I am failing to see how this could possibly qualify. Despite the comments in the article saying "the game exists" - well, that is to be determined. The game needs to be released, reviewed, etc. It existing is not the problem, WP:NOTABILITY is. Turlo Lomon (talk) 20:45, 30 January 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) 21:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could someone capable of viewing deleted content take a look at the first version of this that was deleted, and determine if this version qualifies for G4? I was unaware of the first AfD until I set this one up, but I obviously can't see deleted revisions, so it'd be great if someone would check that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Turlo hit all the main points. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Turlo. One could even make a case that this is a G11. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Or a G4, for that matter. Still, if someone decides to find and add some independent RS content, it could be salvageable. Jclemens (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - To comment on the first post, neither has Doom 4 been released yet. Many games that have not come out yet still have pages. The game has notability of many gaming sites. IGN and GameSpot both have pages for this; As well as articals about the game on Joystiq and Destructoid. All of this was on the first page of a google search of 'Interstellar Marines'. You can already play demos of the game on the game's website. I feel this warrents enough for notability. Skullbird11 (talk) 14:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Actually, I did do my research. Sure, IGN has an article ... with the last news posting from 2006 (5 years ago). Is their review of the game (from an reliable source, not a fan submitted - of which there are not any of those either)? No. What's Gamespot say? Release date: TBD. Joystiq has some more recent news, but even that is dated from 2 years ago. Destructoid's most recent post is from 1 year ago. Interesting on how it says the site is taking pre-orders and still hasn't released a production game. Doom 4 (ignoring WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for the moment), is from a successful franchise from a known publisher. The publisher of Interstellar marines has never produced a game and given the current status of the site, it is questionable if it will ever be published. A demo does not make a game notible. WP:RS does. There is a big difference between an unknown publisher and Bethesda Softworks which has been producing games for 25 years. So, please WP:Assume Good Faith, and let's move on. Turlo Lomon (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - I'd say the right question is if the coverage meets WP:N. How old it is, or how "vapor" it is isn't important... Hobit (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good coverage at Kotaku and GameSpot. --Teancum (talk) 13:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'~~neutral for now'~~ the two sources provided above might meet the letter of WP:N. I'd like to see either a few other equivalent-quality sources or one really good one. The sources are borderline for "significant" IMO. Hobit (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC) (see below the line for new !vote). Hobit (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but reduce to a neutral stub - many upvotes at reddit. I'd say keep, but remove all the unnecesary and ad-sounding info. Kibermiaf (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not released yet, limited to no mainstream coverage. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no prejudice to recreation when released and real secondory sources are provided. Abductive (reasoning) 14:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in regards to the two above delete !votes. I would again point out the significant coverage at Kotaku and GameSpot, both of with are considered reliable sources, and that whether a game is released is not grounds for inclusion. --Teancum (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to agree with you. That said, it's not clear that the two sources have enough coverage to meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 03:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 17:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whether the game is released or not is irrelevant, the bottom line is whether enough sources exist for an article (per WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:NOR etc.). In addition to the couple of sources pointed out above, Ars Technica (owned by Condé Nast Publications) has two pieces by the same author, Michael Thompson. The first is an extremely useful source chock-ful of info. The second actually looks at what the developers' history and is very pertinent. The sources allow an article to be crafted on what it is, an unfinished project which may never see the light of day, rather than a pre-emptive article on a non-existent video game. Someoneanother 19:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep per sources listed directly above. There is now plenty for WP:N. (Struck my !vote above). Nice find Someone another! Hobit (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Always a pleasure, I've used the two sources Teancum has highlighted, but I haven't used the more complicated Ars Technica source yet because it's not the kind of detail to be put up half-finished, hoping to use it at some point though. Someone another 22:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still think WP:HAMMER applies here, and that this game should actually exist before we have an article on it unless it's notable for never being released (which doesn't seem to apply here). Anything we have now is speculation. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But well sourced speculation. WP:CRYSTAL specifically allows well-sourced speculation, which we have here. (And yes, I am amused that Wikipedia is probably the one place where crystal beats hammer. :-) Also note that WP:HAMMER doesn't really apply here (even as an essay) as there is well sourced speculation. Hobit (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what's there now (and the article is still far from perfect) is directly cited, I don't see what's speculative about it. The demos have been produced, information on how the project is faring is available (and a lot of it is by no means flattering), all the article is doing is reporting the story so far, not claiming that the game is complete. Someone another 20:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I've just cited another minigame and discovered that Cinema Blend has seven small articles on Interstellar Marines. Someone another 20:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as mentioned by others, it's been covered by relevant publications. -- Stormwatch (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think Teancum's and Someone another's RSes are adequate to demonstrate notability. -Thibbs (talk) 15:39, 16 February 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.