Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pariah (video game)
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 Snow Keep (non-admin closure). Cyan Gardevoir (used EDIT!) 00:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Pariah (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find video game sources: "Pariah (video game)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)
The article supplies no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to prove the article's notability. Codename Lisa (talk) 11:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Metacritic shows that the game was reviewed by Game Informer, IGN, 1UP.com, Edge Magazine, PC Gamer, Gamespot and Gamespy. Significant coverage by secondary sources, meets the general notability guideline. The article does need a clean up.--xanchester (t) 12:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've expanded the article with a Reception section that includes the Gamespot, IGN and Gamespy sources as citations.--xanchester (t) 12:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Theopolisme 12:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as passing WP:GNG with multiple, reliable, independent, in-depth (reviews) sources shown above. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep - WP:BEFORE absolutely applies here. --Teancum (talk) 13:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Actually, with all due respects, I think assuming good faith applies here! Although I have not made any further comments in the interest of not bludgeoning the process, it does not mean that I personally agree that any of the found coverage is enough for notability. (I maintain a stricter standard of notability.) The fact that I nominated the article for deletion shows that; therefore, jumping on everyone who says Keep is unnecessary and uncivil. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope this does not come as personal, but the majority of editors at video game AfDs agree that multiple video game reviews (being critical analysis) from WP:VG/RS constitute sufficient WP:GNG sources to establish notability. I agree that just stating "WP:BEFORE" may come as harsh to someone unfamiliar with typical video game sites or who may not consider them sufficient. But, in all fairness, you did not list any of these sources that show up straight away even in non-specialized Google search with "Pariah video game reviews"[1]. Perhaps if you had explained your stance of stricter notability standards regarding the sources you did find. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. For a while, I wanted to nominate this article for deletion but I couldn't decide whether it was a right choice or not. After all, I do care about the quality of the sources, not just their names. But apart from considerations for not destroying the efforts of a group of people just on of a mere whim, there is a rumor roaming around that articles about boxed games are never deleted in AfDs because there are several magazines whose jobs are to write reviews for all of them. But recently, I noticed that Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 went through an AfD and is marked for termination after a portion of it is merged. It was a sign that some Wikipedians also care about contents. So, I finally decided that although I cannot be sure about the outcome of an AfD on this game, my personal judgment is on deletion and an AfD is worth taking place, although the final decision, as always, is depending on the community consensus. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello again. Before telling me, someone just emailed me and said that the tag on the Modern Warfare 3 article talk page does not indicate that a deletion is currently in progress and that it is just a record of the past! (Article is merged once and is now rebuilt.) Wow! I can't stop laughing. Wikipedia is such a muddle for those are not familiar with it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. For a while, I wanted to nominate this article for deletion but I couldn't decide whether it was a right choice or not. After all, I do care about the quality of the sources, not just their names. But apart from considerations for not destroying the efforts of a group of people just on of a mere whim, there is a rumor roaming around that articles about boxed games are never deleted in AfDs because there are several magazines whose jobs are to write reviews for all of them. But recently, I noticed that Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 went through an AfD and is marked for termination after a portion of it is merged. It was a sign that some Wikipedians also care about contents. So, I finally decided that although I cannot be sure about the outcome of an AfD on this game, my personal judgment is on deletion and an AfD is worth taking place, although the final decision, as always, is depending on the community consensus. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope this does not come as personal, but the majority of editors at video game AfDs agree that multiple video game reviews (being critical analysis) from WP:VG/RS constitute sufficient WP:GNG sources to establish notability. I agree that just stating "WP:BEFORE" may come as harsh to someone unfamiliar with typical video game sites or who may not consider them sufficient. But, in all fairness, you did not list any of these sources that show up straight away even in non-specialized Google search with "Pariah video game reviews"[1]. Perhaps if you had explained your stance of stricter notability standards regarding the sources you did find. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Actually, with all due respects, I think assuming good faith applies here! Although I have not made any further comments in the interest of not bludgeoning the process, it does not mean that I personally agree that any of the found coverage is enough for notability. (I maintain a stricter standard of notability.) The fact that I nominated the article for deletion shows that; therefore, jumping on everyone who says Keep is unnecessary and uncivil. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as it passes WP:GNG with numerous reviews in reliable sources added by Xanchester. —Torchiest talkedits 17:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I took the same approach as Xanchester and saw that right away the Metacritic source already in the article leads to all sort of reliably sourced coverage. There's pretty clear consensus at WP:VG/S that many of them are considered reliable. (IGN, GameSpot, Edge, etc.) There are easily enough to meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 16:45, 16 November 2012 (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.