Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DunDunDunt (talk | contribs) at 20:12, 22 July 2014 (→15 July 2014). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 2014 July 14
2014 July 16 >

15 July 2014

Heaven Sent Gaming

Heaven Sent Gaming (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Extremely passionate long-winded arguments on both sides. I believe it should be "Overturn", in favor of a "Keep" or "No Consensus". User:Lankiveil, the admin responsible for deletion, has been too busy to review changes over at: User:Smile Lee/Heaven Sent Gaming. Lankiveil's got a life, and is not at fault for being busy. The changes made to the article, mend the concerns of the "delete" votes from the AfD, especially; the WP:OVERREF and much more reliable secondary sources now being used. Both changes give a much better picture on the subject's notability. The talk page on User talk:Smile Lee/Heaven Sent Gaming has a good chunk of details on those involved in rebuilding the article. Mostly me and User:BeachParadise, under the watchful eye of User:Dennis Brown and User:Smile Lee. Both of whom have been very polite in getting this thing back together again. The original creator of the article was User:DunDunDunt. Thank you for taking the time to read this. This is my first "deletion review" request, please feel free to correct me and my judgement. LuigiToeness (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I haven't reviewed completely, so can't offer an opinion on all the sources yet. It has been a concerted effort and such, and if others think it will stand up to AFD, I will take their word for it. Right now I'm spending quality time with one wife and two dogs, so don't have time to fully exam it to the extent I normally would, but you can ping me tomorrow if you would choose that I do. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and move to mainspace, I don't know what the article originally looked like, judging from the edits I can see at User:Smile Lee/Heaven Sent Gaming, any concerns from the original AfD have been corrected. The sources are reliable and most are non-trivial, there's enough here to create an article from those secondary sources alone, and the subject meets the criteria for notability and inclusion. XiuBouLin (talk) 06:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to state my opinion that the original AfD discussion should have been closed as, no consensus. However with the current revisions I would personally vote, keep. XiuBouLin (talk) 06:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as closing admin. The discussion was difficult because of a large number of sock/meatpuppets all of whom posted keep votes. That doesn't automatically mean the article shouldn't be restored or even that the subject or those that have worked on the article condoned the puppetry, of course. However, while the new version reads acceptably, that's still not clear; there are a lot of mentions of the group in the articles but nothing that seems to be substantially about them in a source I'd consider reliable. They certainly do seem to have a dedicated fan following, they seem to be nice folk, and this shouldn't be taken as a statement on the quality of their work, but I don't think it adds up to an article that'll survive a second AFD yet.. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • @Lankiveil:, I agree with your assessment on the puppets, regardless, AfD is not a vote and the results show. The only reason why I support a "no consensus", in contradiction to your original thoughts on the AfD, is due to both sides, "delete" and "keep", bringing up policy-based arguments that were largely ignored by huge debates from both sides. Neither side budged, and I still don't think either side would budge after the end of that AfD. XiuBouLin (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found this about the subject: Shigimori Shizuka (16 June 2014). Internet Legends - Heaven Sent Gaming: 伝説のインターネット - ヘヴン セント ゲーミング. Golden Yen Publishing. This book was published last month, which is not included in the references of the current article, which may correlate with when the article was created. Would it be possible for the article to be restored? So that way users, like I, can view it and its history. If a book like this, lead to the article's creation, then that would be cause for interest in this subject. Meaning the subject gained one piece of "significant coverage" prior to the article's creation, which was never discussed in the AfD. XiuBouLin (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC) Bolded and italicized for emphasis on main points, it's not to be rude, I completely respect Lankiveil he is a great admin. Just have a tiny disagreement with him at the moment. XiuBouLin (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for that reference XiuBouLin, that's a gigantic secondary resource, I've now added it to the User:Smile Lee/Heaven Sent Gaming version. It was never referenced in the mainspace version of the article, but it could have definitely been a driving force in the creation of the article. I didn't stumble upon the article until around the middle of the AfD, but that's a great resource on this subject. LuigiToeness (talk) 06:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you BOZ, my suspicions were confirmed the article's creation date coincides to after the publishment of the book by Yen, the book was more than likely the cause of the creation of the article, and is the plausible cause of users interest in the subject. XiuBouLin (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Arguments basically amounted to WP:ITSNOTABLE based on unreliable sources and trivial mentions. New users became emotionally attached to the article and a bit overenthusiastic in their support for it. I remain unconvinced that this situation has changed. The new sources, such as the book, look no better than the old sources. Though I can't be certain, Golden Yen Publishing looks like a self-publishing outfit. I don't think these editors understand what a reliable source is. Web Fiction Guide, for example, is not a reliable source, and it's still being used as such in the "improved" article. Al Hurricane, written by the same user, is also littered with unreliable sources (last.fm, findagrave.com, spotify.com, etc). No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. I suggest they drop the stick and move on. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note User:NinjaRobotPirate was the the original creator of the AfD. I agree that most keeps were WP:ITSNOTABLE, but most deletes were WP:ITSNOTNOTABLE. And both sides cited policies. It should have been a "no consensus" in my book. Whether or not Golden Yen and/or Web Fiction Guide are reliable is irrelevant, they are independent secondary sources accompanied by obviously reliable secondary coverage. The article about Al Hurricane is irrelevant too but, even so, was not created by the creator of this article. I have no "stick", and I have no interest in editing the article, just a peruser of the AfD and DRV. XiuBouLin (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying that both sides were equally wrong is a false equivalence. Only in the most shallow way could you say that both sides cited policy, and this is another false equivalence. I could call my dog a reliable secondary source, but that doesn't make it so. And I would note that this user has made very few contributions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not making a false equivalence, that's an incorrect assessment. You could call your dog a reliable source, but comparing "your dog" to a translated published book and a website dedicated in a specific field IS a false equivalence. I never claimed both sides were "equally wrong", I don't think either side was wrong, just indicated that neither side made a convincing argument. I am new, and stated it multiple times, as you can also see from my contribution history, I've voted delete and keep on several AfD and DRV discussions. This is the aspect of Wikipedia that interests me most. XiuBouLin (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I know that some editors are working on a new version, and I've offered a tip or two although uninvolved with it. I wish them all the luck getting that version up to par eventually. All of that is meaningless here at DRV, all that matters is "Was the close a reasonable read of consensus?" of the AFD, using the article in the state it was then, and to me the answer is clearly yes. Even giving credit where it isn't due, ignoring the meatpupptry and such, it doesn't change the fact that the article as was presented at AFD didn't provide multiple sources that had significant coverage. Consensus isn't about numbers, it is about substantiated claims of notability and the keep side of the argument failed miserably on this point, so it doesn't matter how many of them failed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Dennis there was obvious meat puppetry and sock puppetry. It's irrelevant in this case though, AfD discussions are not votes and the multiple puppets didn't control the debate. What is relevant however, in notability based arguments, is to deal with whether or not new sources can be brought in. Also, through WP:WHYN, we can see that this subject's article would not be at odds with; being a useless collection of information or against being hearsay. Throughout that AfD discussion multiple new sources kept being revealed. Even I, someone who prefers AfD and DRV to article creation, found ANOTHER point of reference. But due to the puppetry and the moot arguments on both sides I still would call it a "no consensus". I applaud User:Lankiveil, though, must have been a difficult AfD to sort through, but I still disagree with his call. XiuBouLin (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem here is that there were some sources that were marginal to acceptable for sourcing the content itself, but none of it passed WP:SIGCOV. Usually, we want to have two or more sources talking about the topic as the central theme, and from high quality sources, not marginal sources. I don't think the new, reworked article does this yet and the old article surely didn't. That is what the admin has to look at. If there were clearly two high quality RS's with significant coverage, I would have just moved the new article over the old myself, with a note to the previous admin, whom I'm confident wouldn't have complained. In good faith, you are confusing "sources that back a claim" with "sources that establish notability" and they are not at all the same. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dennis Brown, you're an amazing admin, and I aspire to be as helpful as you one day. Many thanks for assuming a potential err in my thought, let me clarify in as simple of terms as I can. I understand the closing admin had to make an extremely tough call but there was no indication in the AfD, or from the article itself, that deleting the article was the best course of action. From what I can see, in the history, at one point there was around 50 references "HOLY COW!" From useless database entries, no less. They were removed over time, in favor of the more broadly accepted sources. Recommended improvements were constantly made, and multiple lengthy secondary sources were found post-deletion. A clear indication that deletion wasn't the correct choice, "no consensus" would have been the most prudent course of action. XiuBouLin (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will be bolding and italicizing key parts, it's not to be rude, just to save time, for voters of this DRV. All three of the ^above^ "endorse" suggestions are from editors that got their desired "delete" result in the original AfD. An ^above^ user, voting "overturn" in favor of a "keep", didn't get his desired result. None of their votes are any lesser for it, nevertheless could contain predetermined bias. That is irrelevant though, their arguments remain, in my opinion, unconvincing. I've voted for an overturn to "no consensus", and I've stated my rationale many times. I do not believe relisting the AfD would be beneficial either. Since both sides are, unconvincingly, arguing the semantics of "reliable" sources. I would like to know what my fellow non-biased users have to say about this DRV.XiuBouLin (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor Comment I understand the arguments for delete, it got swamped in a nasty AfD, and as with any publishing subject with several topics this could become a large amount of articles. In the opposite direction, in favor of keep, I've never seen a non-notable subject having an independently produced book about it... or being mentioned in newspapers and talk radio... or being listed in this many databases... even Crunchyroll and Crunchbase has this subject covered in articles. Though, from the sources mentioned in and outside the article, Heaven Sent Gaming itself probably qualifies for an article, there are several people and topics in the article like Jason Waggoner and Life Never Lost the DO NOT qualify for an article going purely off the independently published sources, Mario, Isabel, and Drew seem to have enough references to get their own articles and the only notable published materials seems to be "Reverie" and "Thad's World Destruction: Before Destruction". Since they seem to be the only SIGCOV potential articles. We should place a watch on potential non-notable independent articles from this topic-set So that way we can avoid a flood of articles claiming, that notability is WP:INHERITED, we should keep a look out for things like "Many: The Blog Of A Space Probe" and "BladeChick", since they do NOT have references that can pass as claiming notability yet. I believe the Heaven Sent Gaming article to be fine, and the current revision should be moved to the mainspace, but experienced people like User:BOZ should handle the potential Drew Cass, Mario J. Lucero, Isabel Ruiz, Reverie (comic), and Thad's World Destruction: Before Destruction articles. 23:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn and move to mainspace, agree with comments made by XiuBouLin, should have been "No Consensus". I would like to state that I voted "Keep" in the original AfD. BeachParadise (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Per Dennis Brown and NinjaRobotPirate. The issue at the AFD was a lack of reliable sources that would support notability claims. AFD isn't cleanup, the article wasn't deleted due to WP:OVERREF or the lack of the sources being in the article, but due to an actual lack of reliable secondary sources. That does not appear to have changed in the short time since the AFD concluded. I voted for delete during the AFD. This DRV appears to be going along the same lines as the AFD though... The "Keeps" and "Deletes" disagreeing on what a "reliable" source is. -- ferret (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed that the DRV is going the same direction, which is why I'm going with Xiu's comments, his views on the AfD, are overall correct. Overturning to keep would be silly, and so would siding with the original delete decision. This strengthens Xiu's "no consensus" argument. Apparently, the articles original creation date was after a book about the subject was released, Xiu mentioned it and I just found it on Amazon. Decided to purchase the book on Kindle and I will read it tonight, after work. There's another book that contains a chapter about the subject, I've been looking for it, but I can't find it anywhere. BeachParadise (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the description page on Amazon, "a team of editors responsible for fact-checking and reliability, they each come from multiple backgrounds in book publishing" "静山社 (Say-Zan-Sha), リクルート (Recruit), 小学館 (Shogakukan), and ゼンリン (Zenrin)" "Scholastic, Penguin Random House, Macmillan, and HarperCollins". This is extremely relevant to the notability of the subject, and the reliability of the source. BeachParadise (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty confident that that book is not a reliable source and is self-published, but I don't really want to comment further on it. Since I'm not interested in rehashing the AFD, this is my last reply here. -- ferret (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above discussion by ferret and BeachParadise is the exact type of conversation that occurred throughout that AfD. There's no consensus here, and this confirms that relisting the AfD will only result in the same back-and-forth. Overturn to no consensus, and move the current article to main article space. This can go up for AfD sometime down the road, but as of now, this will go nowhere. I'm convinced that this subject meets the notability guidelines, but the arguments in the AfD seem split. XiuBouLin (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The closing statement is apt and pithy, and correctly summarises the debate.—S Marshall T/C 11:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, the original nomination was disputed by me, about there being a low amount "Google hits". For whatever reason, it was ignored, Google Search. Notability has nothing to do with the content of the article, but for some reason the references in the article was constantly used as being the problem. Notability is about external research, I found this publisher is on the Library of Congress, there were plenty of external references that were found during, and after, that predate the debate. Both sides of the debate were "longwinded arguments", and they came from both the delete and keep sides, both sides are over 3000 characters. DunDunDunt (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Hume (game designer) (closed)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_July_15&oldid=618028524"