Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flip's Twisted World

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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Flip's Twisted World

Flip's Twisted World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

This article fails to assert notability of the game, which has yet to be released. A check of Google News returns very little - a single article in the local area of the developer, the developer's blog, as well as several mentions that show only the release date, which does not constitute significant coverage in reliable sources. The developer is not notable on their own, nor is their publishing agreement with Majesco enough to push notability onto the game. It's possible that in a few months this game will be a big deal and warrant an article, but for now, it probably shouldn't be here. Addionne (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Some good sources have been added to this article and it has been substantially rewritten since my original nomination - and I think it has become clear that it should be kept. -Addionne (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Game has been pushed back for over a year and may never actually be released. 69.165.146.178 (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Delete article has been edited heavily by Frozen North, as a promotional vehicle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.171.231.16 (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Keep and scrub promo content. --coldacid (talk|contrib) 05:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - If it's released and gets more coverage (reviews, etc.) then maybe it will meet the notability guidelines. At the moment, however, it does not. I suggest that one of the many involved parties with this whole thing userfy it so that if it becomes notable, they can recreate it. I'd also be willing to restore it to a userpage if it is deleted and then later becomes notable. However, it's not notable just because it is being released by a major developer (WP:INHERITED) and it's not notable because it may become notable (WP:CRYSTAL). — GorillaWarfare ^talk 17:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - The addition of the sources from IGN and Joystiq seem to be reliable enough to warrant changing my vote to a keep. The article undoubtedly could use some improvement, but I no longer think it needs to be axed. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 22:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
• Delete its out and three days and no one in the Video Game magazines and Various Websites devoted to such things have not given a review? That means its non-notable flat out. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - some of these delete votes seem to miss the point - editing from a COI'd editor is not a reason to delete. Lack of notability is the basis to delete an article, but I believe I have found sufficient sources: Eurogamer, Gamespy, Joystiq and GamePro. Not earth-shatteringly amazing, but sufficient. Bigger digger (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

  These hits are publisher's descriptions, so not sufficient for verification or notability. Marasmusine (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

  There has been an editorial decision to take the publisher's information and write it in a style suiting each web site. That kind of interaction moves it away from being a republished press release and into a useful source. They seem to cover a wide timescale as well. Happy to be persuaded otherwise. Bigger digger (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

  There's no original commentry. "The publisher has given us a description and some screenshots. Here's the description and the screenshots." is not significant coverage. Marasmusine (talk) 08:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

  But it is original, otherwise they would be duplicates of each other. There has been an editorial decision to include this information and an original effort has been made to include the material. How do you know these descriptions aren't based on hands-on experiences – the game was demonstrated in public and they could have visited the developer. Perhaps we should agree to disagree? :-) Bigger digger (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

  This is the internet and we must fight to the bitter end! Gamepro and Gamespy have token directory entries which I assure you are written by the publisher, as is routine. How do I know they're not based on hands-on experience? Because such an article would look more like this IGN hands-on of the E3 2009 demo. Which I believe is significant enough to contribute towards WP:N. Marasmusine (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Delete This is an unreleased game by a non-notable developer. Very little information and news exists relating to it. Distant highway (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
• Keep and introduce the developer's info into this. I added some (non-inlined) references from reliable VG sources. Whatever the actual reason for some of the Deletes, the COI and unreleased arguments are plain wrong. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 00:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I have now added reception and development section from the sources. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
• keep references seem fine Aisha9152 (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - coverage of E3 demo at IGN. Also a developer diary at Nintendo World Report and in-depth hands-on of the E3 preview at Gaming Union and vgchartz although I haven't vetted these sites for reliability. Marasmusine (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
• Keep article has plenty of reliable sources to pass GNG. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

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.