Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CS2D: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:34, 14 December 2010

CS2D

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Non-notable video game developed by non-notable company. Prod contested by IP that, by the way, full on admits that s/he works for the company. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meritstarzzz (talk • contribs) 15:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep >>> A lot of people play CS2D. (being a free clone of CS 1.6)<<<< —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.26.135.120 (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC) — 188.26.135.120 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"Non-notable video game developed by non-notable company" is not a justification for non-notability as the premise is in itself the inherent resolution of the contention. Clarification of why video game is non-notable is requested.
Non-notable company does not impact notability of the game.
Proposal cites affiliation of the editor with the company as cause for non-notability as described in Wikipedia:SIGCOV

"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.

However, the author of the game have listed the group/organization under the "Alternative Community" category via [1], implying that this group have absolutely no affiliation with the author nor the game. Hence the material published does not violate the sigcov guidelines. Phailed.Me (talk)— Phailed.Me (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Ost (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to keep. --- 78.29.146.0 (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)— 78.29.146.0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Some of the claims in the nomination are irrelevant to this afd: "developed by non-notable company" - doesn't matter: wp:INHERIT says "not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable", but even if it did Unreal is most definitely notable. Also, wp:COI is not a reason to delete. With that said, I think notability is not established in the article; please focus your arguments here in this debate on that question. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The idea that a lot of people play it is irrelevant. I could make a computer game right now (I'm studying to be a computer programmer, btw) and all my friends could come over and play it, but it wouldn't be notable if it didn't exist outside of my personal computer. Also, Phailed.Me, I think you're a little confused as to what significant coverage entails. Not having a conflict of interest (even though there is) doesn't equal significant coverage (and that's the first time I have ever seen that connection). Plus, the link you mentioned lists to the company's own website, which doesn't help your case (see WP:PRIMARY). And although it's true that a non-notable company does not equal non-notability of the game, I couldn't find reliable sources about the game on Google. (And message to the 78 IP: this isn't a vote.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 21:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Erpert, your sole warrant for the deletion proposal rests upon WP:COI, I contended that your justification for non-notability is not based on faulty evidence and provided a first hand source to the author of the game who explicitly categorizes the organization in question as an unaffiliated third party. Since the actual author of the game isn't the one who is making the edits, I don't see how his statement is irrelevant or harms the position contesting the deletion proposal. I agree that sigcov is not fully fulfilled, however if we strictly uphold the notability guidelines, then no articles will ever come to fruition. I advise giving it a bit more time. Phailed.Me (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC). — Phailed.Me (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- If COI is all you think my nomination is based on, you clearly did not read it thoroughly. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it the non-notable game by non-notable company part? I refuted the non-notable company component and contended that asserting that something is non-notable via the premise that it's non-notable is a fallacious argument and asked you to expand upon that by actual warrants of why the game is non-notable. You then gave a subjective rationalization of why the game is non-notable by making an analogy of how newly developed softwares are not notable outside of the developer's own locality. That's quite alright. But seeing as the people making edits to this page are unaffiliated with the developer, I don't see how your analogy applies as the act in itself merits the game notability. Furthermore, there are no set threshold for notability nor a standard for credibility that degenerates into this abstract notion of notability that wikipedia is apparently found upon. If I can show you sources for the number of players and an estimation of total number of players in a ball park range nearing hundreds of thousands, will you still not refute that these evidence are faulty as 1.) they are either compiled by the developer himself or 2.) they are compiled by a third party that is sympathetic to the game and hence there can be no credibility in these research as they are very much open to the manipulation of the sympathetic party? If, say, an editor for the Cornell Daily Sun writes an article parodying the video game tomorrow, would that be considered credible or would the credibility suddenly diminish because the intent of the editor is known, even when the content of the article is unchanged? Furthermore, the wikipedia standards are themselves governed by a community sympathetic to, well, these standards. Hence by your line of rationalization and by the above meta-observation, wouldn't you conclude that the wikipedia standards themselves are non-notable as all sources citing the standards are either from the wikipedia foundation themselves or through sympathetic parties? Phailed.Me (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, plain and simple. Best of luck to the game, but it just doesn't have the coverage from reliable sources. --Teancum (talk) 02:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Would citing the game's inclusion into Europe's largest professional gaming league cover notability? From what I've seen, many other indie games have few if any references.
Keep It should stay! With more work we can edit so it respects those shitty policies! --- 85.240.22.20 (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 **Is it the non-notable game by non-notable company part? I refuted the non-notable company component and contended that asserting that something is non-notable via the premise that it's non-notable is a fallacious argument and asked you to expand upon that by actual warrants of why the game is non-notable. You then gave a subjective rationalization of why the game is non-notable by making an analogy of how newly developed softwares are not notable outside of the developer's own locality. That's quite alright. But seeing as the people making edits to this page are unaffiliated with the developer, I don't see how your analogy applies as the act in itself merits the game notability. Furthermore, there are no set threshold for notability nor a standard for credibility that degenerates into this abstract notion of notability that wikipedia is apparently found upon. If I can show you sources for the number of players and an estimation of total number of players in a ball park range nearing hundreds of thousands, will you still not refute that these evidence are faulty as 1.) they are either compiled by the developer himself or 2.) they are compiled by a third party that is sympathetic to the game and hence there can be no credibility in these research as they are very much open to the manipulation of the sympathetic party? If, say, an editor for the Cornell Daily Sun writes an article parodying the video game tomorrow, would that be considered credible or would the credibility suddenly diminish because the intent of the editor is known, even when the content of the article is unchanged? Furthermore, the wikipedia standards are themselves governed by a community sympathetic to, well, these standards. Hence by your line of rationalization and by the above meta-observation, wouldn't you conclude that the wikipedia standards themselves are non-notable as all sources citing the standards are either from the wikipedia foundation themselves or through sympathetic parties? [[User:Phailed.Me|Phailed.Me]] ([[User talk:Phailed.Me|talk]]) 16:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' Fails [[WP:GNG]], plain and simple. Best of luck to the game, but it just doesn't have the coverage from [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. --[[User:Teancum|Teancum]] ([[User talk:Teancum|talk]]) 02:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
+**'''Comment''' Would citing the game's inclusion into Europe's largest professional gaming league cover notability? From what I've seen, many other indie games have few if any references.
 *'''Keep''' It should stay! With more work we can edit so it respects those shitty policies! --- [[Special:Contributions/85.240.22.20|85.240.22.20]] ([[User talk:85.240.22.20|talk]]) 16:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)