Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elysian Shadows (2nd nomination)

Elysian Shadows

If you came here because you were canvassed off-wiki by Cube b3, 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)

I declined speedy deletion as a repost, as the given references are not all primary sources, which was the complaint of the first AfD. That being said. This software has a very weak claim to notability at best. It is still in development and while the sources given are not primary, they are still for the most part weak. Blogs and industry publications and several of the sources have very little on the subject. Delete and salt (temporarily, not permanently), perhaps six months or so. Wait for this to hit the market and try again. Safiel (talk) 02:11, 15 July 2014 (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) 02:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know what salt means in this context. That said, I could have beefed the article up with references from more Sega related websites but at the moment WP:VG/RS does not have a single reference for Sega or Dreamcast by that logic Sega and Dreamcast are not notable altogether for example Sega endorsed blogs like Sega Nerds and Sega Bits who have actually made numerous posts on the subject are not considered reliable. Dozens of indie game websites that have covered the game and interviewed the developers are not considered reliable. The game has been in development for 7 years and their YouTube channel has almost 10,000 followers how is that not notable?

Nonetheless, I have not used any of that information and I have constructed the almost entirely from Wikipedia's custom google search. Here are the references I have used:

MCVUK news post is based on the press release, that is what press releases are for. We rejected Gamasutra last time because they had essentially copy pasted the press release MCVUK on the other hand has reworded and summarized it.
Destructoid: I found this through the custom google search and it certainly isn't based on any press release.
IndieGames: We already agreed this was good, but on it's own it was insufficient. Well I waited and found quite a few more references.
GamersHell: What is a listing? Do you mean a gamepage? It does look like a listing however it is categorized as news. In either case we discussed problems with copy pasting press releases. If a notable website has made a listing/game page for it, why is that a bad thing?
- If it is a bad thing then I would just have to delete Game Revolution.--Cube b3 (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every single sentence in the article is reinforced by multiple references.

Also note the games Kickstarter is scheduled to go live in a matter of weeks and it would automatically be at the height of it's popularity. Additionally the development team has already announced on their Facebook page that they will be on the ocver of indie games magazine for August. As far as retro indie games are concerned they don't get anymore notable than Elysian Shadows.

If you look at my Wikipedia history, I have almost single handedly created articles for all Dreamcast games released in the past 5 years. So I can tell a notable game apart from something that isn't.

One last thing the Admin "Slakr" the one who deleted the page did it without participating in the discussion. We were actively discussing the situations and we were all adding references and Slakr came and deleted the article. I requested him multiple times to atleast give me the transcript of the original article but he simply ignored me. Maybe an Admin should note that sort of behavior.--Cube b3 (talk) 03:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Responding to your last comment, I will address other issues later. Generally, the administrator (or in some cases a non-admin who closes a discussion) should NOT have participated in the discussion. The idea is that the closing editor does NOT have a stake in the outcome. Safiel (talk) 04:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry, Cube b3, Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. It's possible this product will become notable in the future but for now, it's WP:TOOSOON. None of the sources offered rises to the level of reliable independent and secondary as required by WP:GNG. What we have is a mishmash composed mostly of unreliable blog sites reporting breathlessly about a product that does not exist. The one page that's not a blog is the university page, but they're not independent given the relationship with the author as one of their students. There's just not enough here to establish notability, which is our only concern at AfD. Recommend the article be WP:USERFIED until appropriate sources become available. Msnicki (talk) 04:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Same reasons as the last AFD. Not nearly enough has been changed from the last one, and the last AFD wasn't that long ago. I would have speedy deleted it had I gotten to it first. Sergecross73 msg me 04:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand how references hand picked from WP:VG/RS via the wikipedia's custom search engine for approved reliable and situational references. I just don't understand it. I keep reading the word blog but I have not used blogs MCVUK, indiegames.com (Gamasutra's indie site), Game Revolution, and GamersHell are not blogs. Just read the Wikipedia page if you can't bother to check out the website. The only blog I have used is Destructoid who have written a fantastic article on the game. Did any of you even bother to read it?

4 out of 7 are not blogs and are approved reliable reference.

Only 1 out of 7 is a blog and it is an approved situational reference and if anybody uses the Custom Google search for situational reference you will easily find several more from websites like Giant Bomb who have written quite a bit on the game but I only used Destructoid cause I really enjoyed reading that article.

So that makes 5 of 7 approved reference.

I asked Wiki Admin Czar before using University of Alabama at Huntsville as a reference and he told me it was fine. It is an incredibly detailed article if anyone has bothered to read it. You are welcome to check Czar's talk page and the only reason UAH is not on WP:VG/RS is because it is an academic website and not a gaming one, so the fact that such a prestigious institution acknowledges the video games existence and invites the developer to come and give a presentation says a hell of a lot about the games notability.

So that makes 6 out of 7 approved references.

The only one that isn't approved is DCS which is funny cause each and every Dreamcast indie game article I have read already uses it or the quoted reference is using DCS as a reference nonetheless, DCS so far has not been approved I still have 6 references.

Lastly, as I stated earlier it has already been announced that the game will be covered in print on Indie Games Magazine for August. So in addition to having several online not only do we have reliable websites we also have print magazines.--Cube b3 (talk) 05:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An article coming out in August is not very helpful in July. Msnicki (talk) 05:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is if you know it is coming and from who. Wikipedia has a ton of respect for the print medium.--Cube b3 (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only if it's actually in print. Sources that don't yet exist don't count. (Also, as explained at WP:REDACT, you should try to avoid editing your comment after it's already been replied to.) Msnicki (talk) 06:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I was actually editing before you had replied... oh well. I can copy paste it here as well

4 out of 7 are not blogs and are approved reliable reference.

Only 1 out of 7 is a blog and it is an approved situational reference and if anybody uses the Custom Google search for situational reference you will easily find several more from websites like Giant Bomb who have written quite a bit on the game but I only used Destructoid cause I really enjoyed reading that article.

So that makes 5 of 7 approved reference.

I asked Wiki Admin Czar before using University of Alabama at Huntsville as a reference and he told me it was fine. It is an incredibly detailed article if anyone has bothered to read it. You are welcome to check Czar's talk page and the only reason UAH is not on WP:VG/RS is because it is an academic website and not a gaming one, so the fact that such a prestigious institution acknowledges the video games existence and invites the developer to come and give a presentation says a hell of a lot about the games notability.

So that makes 6 out of 7 approved references.

The only one that isn't approved is DCS which is funny cause each and every Dreamcast indie game article I have read already uses it or the quoted reference is using DCS as a reference nonetheless, DCS so far has not been approved I still have 6 references.--Cube b3 (talk) 06:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Keep The article has been sourced with information from at least 6 different reliable independent secondary sources, where this piece of software has received significant coverage. The software in question certainly doesn't seem that it should be covered in some other article. Based on that, it seems to meet the burden for WP:GNG. Ljsdcdev (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC) — Ljsdcdev (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Gamer and other enthusiast websites are usually considered WP:QUESTIONABLE because they lack the necessary reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. Msnicki (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I am stuck on a merry go round. As I have repeatedly stated the article has been made with reliable secondary references. So exactly what facts need to be checked because at this point it just feels like collective discrimination against Sega.--Cube b3 (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of the page stated, the references appear sound and certainly don't all constitute enthusiast websites. Sure, the reference from Dreamcast-Scene certainly would qualify as an enthusiast site, the other references seem (on the whole to be) quite reputable as far as gaming-related press goes. I wouldn't go as far to say that it is collective discrimination against Sega, but it does seem like there is something amiss here. Ljsdcdev (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to double down and say that there is discrimination.

That's a ludicrous assumption to jump to, especially coming from a person who didn't even know that uninvolved editors/admin are supposed to close deletion discussions. Wouldn't it be more likely that you don't seem to understand the prospect of reliable sources, as defined by Wikipedia? It doesn't make any sense for there to be "discrimination" towards a decade old electronics device... Sergecross73 msg me 23:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A brief history of everything has been done thus far

The original page was created via primary references.

Admins: This page is not meeting Wikipedia standards because it uses primary references. Let's delete this WP:TOOSOON

Fans: They have almost 10,000 followers on our YouTube channel nonetheless good point lets add some secondary references. We present references most notably from Sega Nerds, Sega Bits and a bunch of other websites.

Admins: Yeah, these references aren't good enough please use something from WP:VG/RS

Fans: Ummm... there are no Sega or Dreamcast websites on the list?

Admins: Yes, none of them are good enough refer to [[WP:VG/RS#Fansites.

Fans: Sega Nerds is a reliable source it is endorsed by Sega and the editor in chief is a professional journalist. He makes his living writing on video games.

Admins: .... (ignores)

Fans: Hey, I found a couple of references from the list that work.

Admins: Indiegames.com is good, Gamasutra is good but they have only shared the press release so that's not good.

Fans: Doesn't it count for something if an approved site is sharing their press release? In either case, we'll avoid press releases. Let us find better references.

Admins: Deletes the page.

Fans: WTF?

I personally contact "SLAKR"; the Admin who deleted the page multiple times, humbly requesting the transcript of the original page. To this date he has never even acknowledged any message I have left him. So for the next 2 weeks I worked with Czar; whom I considered a decent Admin. He helped out taught me how to write better articles. He asked me to work on other Sega articles and I did.

In one of our discussions about searching for games that meet the Wiki requirements he referred me towards the custom google search that Wiki uses to validate articles. I look up Elysian Shadows and find over 10 pages in results. I siff through them and rewrite an entirely new article from scratch and present it to Czar and he nominates it for deletion again. I am like what the ****?

Despite the fact that I did not have a single Sega website on the list of approved references I was able to create the page, each and every single sentence on the article has been reinforced by multiple references.

This is discrimination and several Sega fans have left Wikipedia altogether because of such attitudes.--Cube b3 (talk) 07:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to participate at an AfD, please try to follow the simple formatting rules explained at WP:THREAD. Msnicki (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for sharing that link. It had a nice video so I watched that. I just added headings to the preceding discussion to make it easier to follow. Did not find anything against adding headings. I feel that they were important because I was effectively stating the same thing for the third time without getting an adequate rationalization. Instead of responding to the topic at hand you respond to something irrelevant like formatting.

Let me ask you a simple question:

Why is an article composed entirely from references that are approved, fact checked, notable and reliable. Still being considered for deletion?--Cube b3 (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article was so recently deleted due to a consensus that it was failing the GNG, and your newly created article is still in terrible shape. Many of the sources are not reliable (Gamers Hell) or barely cover the topic in much detail ("Game Revolution" - which is a few sentences of a database entry). Also, your massive, rambling responses are not helping, if anything they're scaring people away from contributing because there's too much to sort through. (Also, I'd like to point out that Czar is not an Admin, not that it would make a difference in your arguments - he alone doesn't have the ability to definitively declare a source useable by themselves, admin or not.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that the page is not written very well but in my defense I spent all my energy on finding references and wrote the page adhering to the references I had. I could have written a better page (like the original one) by using primary references however I felt best to establish notability before working on quality.

As for the references I am getting tired of discussing them over and over. Let's just discuss the two that you mentioned; honestly, I had never heard of GamersHell as well but it showed up in the custom search. So don't blame me, if you are an Admin then please go ahead and check why it is showing up in the custom search. Second, the Game Revolution reference is exclusively used to reinforce the games storyline section in that regard it is adequate. I also realized that the GR page looked a little thin so in addition to GR, I reinforced the storyline section with 2 other references.

I understand what you mean my rambling but I am afraid we are stuck with circular reasoning

Admins: References are not good.

Me: They are taken from list of good references.

Admins: They don't cover the topic in detail.

Me: They adequately cover the sentence, that they are used as a reference for.

Best Regards--Cube b3 (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If your excuse is "I didn't have time to write it well, I was too busy looking for sources", that just reinforces one of the main concerns at this AFD, that it was too soon to recreate this... Sergecross73 msg me 23:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sergecross, I never said I don't have time. I just said I wrote an article where every sentence would be reinforced with references. I view this as delection and not concentrating on the issue. We were talking about Game Revolution and you did not acknowledge or talk about what I said on that subject. More over how come an Admin never looks at what is wrong with Wikipedia for example why is GamersHell showing up in the custom search if it isn't reliable?--Cube b3 (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's how you're supposed to write all articles - sourcing everything. If it looks rough because you could only include a little bit because that's all that sources are covering, that's probably evidence of a topic not receiving enough coverage to warrant an article. (And I'm not involved in creating the "Custom Searches". Take their errors up with them.) Sergecross73 msg me 23:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sergecross I just went through WP:VG/RS and GamersHell is on the check list. So I don't need to take it up with anyone. Perhaps we should work on improving the article and availability of Sega references rather than waste our energy over here. We have to assume good faith, so how about you put some faith in me and my contributions. It is possible that there is a problem with Wikipedia, if no Sega website is on the list of approved references.

I have read and reread the GNG and other pages that I have been linked too. I request that you independently review the integrity of the content on Sega fan sites such as www.seganerds.com, then read the case I have made for it over here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources

Sega Nerds alone has done sufficient coverage on Elysian Shadows along with hundreds of other games that have weak pages on Wikipedia. If you contribute towards making a fantastic site like that one or www.sega-16.com approved on that list, not only will we be able to fix Elysian Shadows page but so many others as well. If not, it is only a matter of days. It is confirmed that Elysian Shadows is the COVER game of Indie Game Magazine which is a print source as well as an approved source through that I would be able to flesh out the page.

Best Regards,--Cube b3 (talk) 07:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sega Nerds and Sega Bits do not meet Wikipeda's definition of a reliable source. Your magazine isnt out yet. Sure, it could get a review at IGN too, but you can't count on sources that don't exist yet. "GamersHell" is still on the checklist, and not the main list, because there hasn't been much of a consensus to deem it reliable. Read the linked discussion. They're pretty inconclusive. Sergecross73 msg me 13:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please engage in the Sega Nerds discussion over there and I will see what I can do about that. As for Elysian Shadows, they just posted a few new interviews and sources on their Facebook page. I will have to siff through them and see if they are on the list.--Cube b3 (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About that - in that discussion, you disclose you are a writer for Sega Nerds. It is a conflict of interest for you to be using it as a source on Wikipedia. Also, can't help but think that it's sketchy that the only person pushing for it to be used as a source here or at the other discussion, is someone who has close ties to the source itself... Sergecross73 msg me 01:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP If not notable per WP definition now it will become notable in less than two weeks with the launch of the game's Kickstarter campaign and subsequent press coverage: [announcement at YT] DCEvoCE (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NEXTBIGTHING, "there is probably no more useless argument for retention of an article than, "He's up-and-coming; They're gonna get bigger; If you delete her now, you'll have to create a new article when she becomes more famous; It's a rising concept/meme/ideology; They show enormous potential; This could revolutionize the field." (except the lame "I made this vanity page for my girlfriend's birthday; just leave it up until then"). All of these are really just different ways of saying, "I tacitly admit this subject is not yet notable; but I believe it will become notable." It's also a rather blatant violation of our underlying policy that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball." Msnicki (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, not only is the whole argument flawed, but the closing Admin is going to notice that all the "keeps" are just Sega enthusiasts coming in/being recruited to blindly defend their hobby. Sergecross73 msg me 01:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I think WP:SPA is the wrong link? but I concede to the point made by Msnicki. DCEvoCE (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You edit very infrequently, but when you do, it's to argue something Sega related. Sergecross73 msg me 01:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, way to make a sweeping generalization about people who might happen to comment on this AfD. I'll admit that cube did indeed alert me outside of Wikipedia to the AfD for this article, but I still stand by what I've already said here. After all, who's likely to see and respond to this AfD other than those that are interested in the subject matter of the article? Dreamcast homebrew/indie games is a niche market to start with, but one that I feel is still notable. Yes, I participate in the Dreamcast homebrew community — I've been involved in the community for more than ten years now. At the same time, I wouldn't have commented here if I didn't feel that the article at least makes a reasonable attempt at establishing notability and informing those reading the article about the game that the article is about. I wouldn't (and didn't) come to the defense of the original article, which was not adequately sourced with secondary sources, much as I haven't done for other articles about Dreamcast homebrew that would fail that guideline for establishing notability. I'll also admit that the article could indeed use some additional work, but deleting it isn't going to get that work done. It'd be nice if we could talk about how to improve the article, rather than debating deleting it before said work could be completed. Ljsdcdev (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You sound like your condemning me, but what you said proved exactly what I was saying. WP:CANVASSING off-Wiki is not okay, and recruiting like minded people to defend something based on your liking it is not how these discussions go. Likewise, "deleting an article, prematurely and sloppily recreating it, and then conceding its in bad shape but not wanting to delete it" is likewise not how things work either. But none of you know that because you're just here defending something you personally like rather than trying to build an encyclopedia. Sergecross73 msg me 03:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me something I am a Pakistani, in addition to Videogames, Music and Movies. I edit pages related to my own country. Should I not edit because I have a conflict of interest I am very passionate about my country and I want to archive it's notability. I may use History text books but none of those text books would be an approve list of sources. Further more I am a psychologist, I frequently edit in researches that I read and find very exciting.

I remember waaay back I introduced a professor of mine to Wikipedia and all his drive was to archive the history of his city > his town > his village. Do you think his contributions were compromised, do you think he had a conflict of interest. I also introduced another professor of mine only a few years back and given that she was a psychologist she always adds researches and theories to Wikipedia specifically those that were done by my university or her colleagues from other schools. Every Wikipedian I have come across (in the real world) has contributed towards something he or she was extremely passionate about. We call it passion, you call it conflict of interest.

My respect for you has started to increase and whether or not this page stays or goes, I would love to learn more from you just as I did with Czar but you have to help me see things your way, I have no interest or drive to edit things that I do not have a passion for. Hypothetically speaking had I been interested in the world cup I would feel like editing the wiki pages after seeing the game. But I am not interested in the world cup, I was interested in AiGD and after seeing the show and reading about it in dozens and dozens of website I felt it deserved a Wiki entry.

After creating this page I have realized most of the websites I visit for my gaming fix, aren't considered reliable. I was not always a writer on SegaNerds you know, the website has been around for a decade. I only started writing for them in the fall. Even if I am compromised, and I have a conflict of interest. You don't, you should be able to evaluate the website and it should stand on it's own merit. Czar made me read the criteria when I spoke about Sega-16, and then I nominated Sega Nerds just to see how the admins would respond to a site with professional journalists from the main stream gaming industry and the result was still the same.

Sincerely

B3--Cube b3 (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right... So, being informed of an AfD is apparently in violation of the canvassing guidelines, even though those canvassing guidelines say that it is perfectly acceptable to inform other editors of an ongoing discussion? Got it. Defending the post with relatively sound reasoning, while admitting that it needs some work is only defending it because I like it? Got it. Suggesting that it might be a good idea to cool down and let the article take shape, giving constructive feedback on it is inappropriate for building an encyclopedia? Got it. Guess that removes just about any reason to edit Wikipedia. Now I know why there's a policy like WP:DONTBITE, especially after seeing this thread. Ljsdcdev (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As explained at WP:Canvassing, you're allowed to notify other editors of the discussion, but not selectively notifying only those you think might support your position. Msnicki (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Please actually read the guidelines, there's a right and wrong way to notify people of discussions. And no one is "biting" anyone, We're just notifying you guys of the ways you're misunderstanding policies and procedures. I guess it's not easy for anyone to hear they're wrong...bit no one has been out of line in regards to telling you this Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just made a post on Elysian Shadows and a Dreamcast forum. Anyway I wanted to share 2 new sites that have covered the game for the first time in the last 48 hours.

Given that hundreds of websites are covering the same news it is fair to say that the are article is accurate, reliable and verifiable. Given that I made the page with half a dozen reliable websites the whole issue of accuracy is successfully addressed. Sergecross I almost don't want to ask you this right now cause it would just derail this discussion further but why isn't notability established by the number of people interested? Thousands of followers on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter why doesn't that amount to anything?

Best Regards

--Cube b3 (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That question is like asking why McDonalds sells burgers or why ESPN covers sports. It is what it is by definition, it's the foundation of what they are. Same with Wikipedia and it's standards of notability. Perhaps you should look into Wikias or something. Their standards are different and typically more lax. Sergecross73 msg me 23:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Serge, I fear that talking in metaphors is unproductive. McDonalds has launched McCafe, they have also started offering healthier food options which was fundamentally against their fundamentals. I think the ESPN analogy is more apt because sporting networks are currently in a transition period and they are evaluating the validity of eSports which primarily consists of video games but in a way they are making a fundamental change. So following your analogies a fundamental change is in order. I have been editing Wikipedia for almost a decade with almost no problems, I have been making kick ass articles on indie video games with rarely any problems. Prior to making ES's page I was unaware of an approved list of references, yet all my pages are approved. Nonetheless this will be a fruitless discussion, I would suggest you read my comment at 4:25 July 18th as you didn't reply to it and it delved deeper into my fundamental approach on Wikipedia.--Cube b3 (talk) 05:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant more like, it would be like asking McDonalds not to sell burgers anymore in the analogy, for what it's worth. Sergecross73 msg me 15:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I requested you to please respond to my comment at 4:25 July 18th.--Cube b3 (talk) 03:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. I previously discussed why this topic wasn't ready for primetime on my talk page. Even with the Alabama article, the sourcing for this topic since the last AfD is still paper thin. This isn't a matter of reaching a magic number of sources from the WP:VG/RS list, because the republished press releases and game info listings are not secondary sources that can help build a full-bodied article. There are plenty of other articles that need work until (if and when) this game is announced and gets actual coverage in mainstream, secondary pubs. I should also note since that I am not an admin since I was mentioned as one ("wiki admin czar"), though it should have no bearing on this process anyway. czar ♔ 18:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a press release http://www.gamasutra.com/view/pressreleases/218407/Video_Update_for_Elysian_Shadows_NextGen_2D3D_RPG_forDreamcast_OUYA_etc.php the ones used on the page are not in either case it is just a few more days till August, then the game would be on the cover of Indie Game Magazine, surely no one would argue that a game that has graced the cover of a magazine is not noteworthy.--Cube b3 (talk) 03:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the MCV source. The magazine you mentioned is not reliable. Surely by this point you see what I mean about grasping at straws czar ♔ 05:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Single Purpose Accounts

I would just like to point out this single purpose account nonsense as quite a discrimination, I have been on Wikipedia for almsot a decade and have worked on a plethora of things that I am passionate about, I have invited others who are well versed on the subject matter to "chime their opinion" it has been with the intent to enlighten and educate. As a member of the Sega task force I am feeling discriminated especially since not a single sega website or platform specific site is on the list of approved references.--Cube b3 (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also went through the history of contributions by User:Ljsdcdev and he has been around since 2008 and he is pursuing a PHD in Computer Science so it makes sense that his contributions largely include stuff he is familiar with such as Apple and Sega related articles. Nonetheless I still found evidence of him working on other articles such as Callinectes sapidus, Oriole Park and Memorial Stadium (Baltimore). He may not be the most active Wikipedian but he is evidently not a single purpose account either.--Cube b3 (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The telltale sign of a SPA is singleminded zeal towards a specific article or area of the encyclopedia, such as towards keeping an article against the findings of recent consensus. SPAs usually have some ulterior motive towards pushing past that point of reasonability, such as some affiliation with the subject. SPA tags are used sparingly and are meant such that others do not have to do the actual work of looking at someone's contributions to find that they're a SPA. czar ♔ 05:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ouya References

I was going through the list of approved references and I just realized that in addition to Sega not a single OUYA platform reference exist either. Not even www.ouyacentral.tv that is an official promotional website for the platform, similar to Nintendo Life, OXM or Playstation Blog. Elysian Shadows were actually interviewed by them today.--Cube b3 (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]