Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sentou Gakuen
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 delete. I am more than willing to restore this article in the future if the game does prove notable. — Joseph Fox 01:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sentou Gakuen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreleased game, unknown developer, no notability AmethystPhoenix (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article might be notable given that this game is the first of its kind as mentioned in the article and references. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When the game is actually released and has any source talking about it other than the game's developer, it might be notable. At the moment there's no evidence backing the claims of being the first of its kind. It's solely self-promotion. AmethystPhoenix (talk) 06:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the claim that doesn't have backing Canestenmobile (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When the game is actually released and has any source talking about it other than the game's developer, it might be notable. At the moment there's no evidence backing the claims of being the first of its kind. It's solely self-promotion. AmethystPhoenix (talk) 06:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is my first article here so I kinda need you guys help. My article marked for deletion, any suggestions for this? I really want to make article regarding this. Is it forbidden to post article about unreleased game? Hmm how about this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotics;Notes. The developer of the game is indie, (doujin?) to know more about the developer you can check http://vndb.org/p2260 Canestenmobile (talk) 03:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Significant unreleased games with reliable third-party coverage (that aren't based on speculation as in WP:FUTURE) are fine. The problem is that with an unreleased game by an unknown developer, there is unlikely to be any coverage anywhere satisfying the notability guidelines. See WP:GNG - AmethystPhoenix (talk) 18:11, 19 October 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) 23:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What should I do to improve this article? Canestenmobile (talk) 05:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you should create a page for the publisher and make it more noteworthy. Idk, but I don't think this article needs to be deleted. There's enough information. It just needs more details and references. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Found information about the developer, it's on vndb producers list http://vndb.org/p/all?q=project+sentou 110.139.13.43 (talk) 07:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Added more reference, http://visual-novels.net/vn/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1202&Itemid=2 changed the TBA 2012 to January 1, 2012 Canestenmobile (talk) 11:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason I brought it up was because as far as I can tell there is zero information on the game anywhere that isn't just posted by the game's creators. It doesn't pass WP:GNG. VNDB is a user-edited site. So is the 'apex web-gaming' site. The visual-novels.net post is a press release. The page author is clearly affiliated with the game and trying to create more references for it, but they're still all self-created. There is no reliable independent coverage. - AmethystPhoenix (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you should create a page for the publisher and make it more noteworthy. Idk, but I don't think this article needs to be deleted. There's enough information. It just needs more details and references. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What should I do to improve this article? Canestenmobile (talk) 05:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as promotional. Game is upcoming so well within the internet age and has only 136 gHits. Unless they are starting a local grassroots movement through offline newspapers, this game is not remotely notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On October 24, GamePro published an article about the game based on their recent press release. At this point, there appears to only be a single reliable source (GamePro) covering the game. Thus, I am sticking with my original opinion that it should be deleted per the GNG since the GNG requires multiple (more than one) reliable sources. --Odie5533 01:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Is this one can be used as a reliable source? http://www.gamasutra.com/view/pressreleases/78891/PST_TEAM_ANNOUNCES_RELEASE_DATE_FOR_THE_UPCOMING_ONLINEVISUAL_NOVEL.php
- On October 24, GamePro published an article about the game based on their recent press release. At this point, there appears to only be a single reliable source (GamePro) covering the game. Thus, I am sticking with my original opinion that it should be deleted per the GNG since the GNG requires multiple (more than one) reliable sources. --Odie5533 01:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
or http://www.develop-online.net/press-releases/78891/Sentou-Gakuen Canestenmobile (talk) 01:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added more references. Please help me out improving the article Canestenmobile (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They can be used, but they don't support notability because they are primary sources since then are press release. --Odie5533 02:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Added reference from another game news site, this one should be reliable and notable. It's quite famous, at least in my country.Canestenmobile (talk) 11:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They can be used, but they don't support notability because they are primary sources since then are press release. --Odie5533 02:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 11:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah guys I've tried to gathers enough sources to keep this article alive, but in case I still miss something please point it out, this is my first article here so yeah, Please help me out Canestenmobile (talk) 13:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deletewithout prejudice. Unfortunately I'm unable to find any additional sources beyond the Gamepro one already present, which doesn't satisfy the multiple non-trivial secondary sources needed to demonstrate notability. It's a case of either being too soon or being something that will not gain traction with sources. It's still early days yet, so that may well change, but I'm not in favour of keeping the article on the basis of the developer's grand claims of being the 'first' of its type in their press releases. Publishers and developers spout constant flannel about their products. I'm sorry I can't be of further help with the sourcing. Someoneanother 18:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How about sources from GameQQ? Canestenmobile (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's difficult for me to judge whether that site is reliable (in Wikipedia terms), but putting that aside there is only a small amount of content within the GameQQ source in the article currently. I've run it through a translator and there is some usable content there, but with both the GameQQ and Gamepro sources there's still little that can be said about the game beyond what the developers themselves would impart right now, IMHO they don't combine to form enough info, and there is no guarantee that further sources will appear. If more sources do appear then I would fully support article recreation (it would be brought back as-is, except for the images) via deletion review. That's only if it gets deleted in the first place, if it is and further sources appear then please do not hesitate to bring it up at the videogame project or my talk page. I know it's frustrating when something you've worked hard at is deleted, but if you know how articles can be brought back easily, which in cases like this leaves the door open. Someoneanother 19:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Incubate or userfy Looking again there are alternatives to deletion and this article does have some secondary coverage and a chance that more could appear. Someoneanother 19:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's difficult for me to judge whether that site is reliable (in Wikipedia terms), but putting that aside there is only a small amount of content within the GameQQ source in the article currently. I've run it through a translator and there is some usable content there, but with both the GameQQ and Gamepro sources there's still little that can be said about the game beyond what the developers themselves would impart right now, IMHO they don't combine to form enough info, and there is no guarantee that further sources will appear. If more sources do appear then I would fully support article recreation (it would be brought back as-is, except for the images) via deletion review. That's only if it gets deleted in the first place, if it is and further sources appear then please do not hesitate to bring it up at the videogame project or my talk page. I know it's frustrating when something you've worked hard at is deleted, but if you know how articles can be brought back easily, which in cases like this leaves the door open. Someoneanother 19:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How about sources from GameQQ? Canestenmobile (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:V. All current sources are primary, based on press releases, or trivial. This may be notable some day, but not right now. Wyatt Riot (talk) 12:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep I think the article (which looks very good for a page created very recently) should be kept for now. I would like to praise the creator/editor who is actually making a decent effort. Sentou Gakuen should be improved, not deleted. I'm sure the "sources" will appear soon. --Hydao (talk) 02:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:CRYSTAL. We don't write articles for subjects that may be notable in the future. We require sources now for articles now. Userspace drafts are an excellent way to work on articles until that point, and this article can always be moved to the userspace of a willing editor if/when it is deleted. Wyatt Riot (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I read it before, but thanks. I think it is notable, that's all. --Hydao (talk) 12:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:CRYSTAL. We don't write articles for subjects that may be notable in the future. We require sources now for articles now. Userspace drafts are an excellent way to work on articles until that point, and this article can always be moved to the userspace of a willing editor if/when it is deleted. Wyatt Riot (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Maybe it will become notable after release, but at this point, it isn't. -- Whpq (talk) 17:14, 1 November 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.