Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/7 Sins
- 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The result was Nomination Withdrawn. Non-admin closing due to nominator withdrawing nomination and universal consensus to keep. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 09:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 7 Sins (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 video game article does not assert its notability by providing significant coverage in reliable sources. Fleet Command (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Fleet Command (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NOMINATION WITHDRAWN. Someone another (talk · contribs) successfully asserted the notability. Fleet Command (talk) 08:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) MrKIA11 (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A quick search shows this game was reviewed in magazines PC Gamer, PC Zone, PC Format [1] and C&VG [2] Marasmusine (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Therefore, perhaps you'll be kind enough to add a Critical Reception section to the article and assert its notability? Because I didn't nominated it because of being unnotable. I nominated it because it does not assert notability. Notability must be claimed with evidence. Fleet Command (talk) 05:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Objection: Excuse me? Your "PC Format" source is turns out a GameSpot without a review! You have claimed 4 reviews but 3 of them failed verifiability per WP:V. I hope you forgive me for saying this if it is unsettling but I feel I am being tricked. Fleet Command (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The GameSpot page is an aggregate of critic's scores. It shows the publication dates of the three magazines. I'm not sure if they are archived online anywhere, so someone who has access to the print versions will have to summarize the reviews in the article; this is what the VG wikiproject is for. However, for notability, it's enough that the game has received this coverage (and GameSpot is a reliable source for this) - the rest is just details to be filled in later. Please assume good faith! Marasmusine (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, yes. But in this particular case, no. No professional review is included. And no, it does not show any publications. At least I see none. Perhaps you see something that I do not see?
As for assuming good faith: It is an expression which is abused a lot, both in and out of Wikipedia. Hence, faith tends to waver in face of lack of supporting evidence. Therefore, please kindly considering reinforcing my wavering one. Fleet Command (talk) 06:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- PC Gamer UK, Aug 1st 2005; PC Zone UK, Sep 1st 2005; PC Format UK, Aug 1st 2005. Not sure why you can't see this on the page. In addition, there is the C&VG review, which is reproduced entirely on their website. Marasmusine (talk) 08:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You meant that tiny list all along? It is millions of lightyears far from establishing notability for the subject of the article. Really, you have the nerves! Fleet Command (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The tiny list is not the coverage. The coverage is four reviews in print magazines from reputable publishers. The tiny list tells you which issues to look at. Yes, I have nerves. Marasmusine (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You meant that tiny list all along? It is millions of lightyears far from establishing notability for the subject of the article. Really, you have the nerves! Fleet Command (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- PC Gamer UK, Aug 1st 2005; PC Zone UK, Sep 1st 2005; PC Format UK, Aug 1st 2005. Not sure why you can't see this on the page. In addition, there is the C&VG review, which is reproduced entirely on their website. Marasmusine (talk) 08:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The GameSpot page is an aggregate of critic's scores. It shows the publication dates of the three magazines. I'm not sure if they are archived online anywhere, so someone who has access to the print versions will have to summarize the reviews in the article; this is what the VG wikiproject is for. However, for notability, it's enough that the game has received this coverage (and GameSpot is a reliable source for this) - the rest is just details to be filled in later. Please assume good faith! Marasmusine (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Lots of sources: “Whilst showing the subject is mentioned in a number of sources, not all sources are reliable and may only be trivial mentions.” Fleet Command (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Marasmusine. AfD is not cleanup; don't assume a subject is not notable just because its article lacks references. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't assume it non-notable. I nominated it because of a lack of assertion of notability. Notability must be asserted via evidence, per WP:NRVE. Fleet Command (talk) 05:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And by the way, please do not mistake Cleanup with Citing Source. Cleanup is a minor act of improving quality. Citing sources and proof of notability however, is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. Do I need to provide a bunch of Wikilinks? Fleet Command (talk) 05:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is that you saw that the article lacked citations, yet your statements imply that you didn't search for any sources yourself. If you had shown clearly that you had, then I would not be opposed to deletion as there would be evidence to support your argument. As it is however, you have made no attempt to improve the article, and instead you appear to be relying only on the assumption that the subject is not notable. As such, I will not support deletion in this instance, unless you can prove the subject is not notable. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 08:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And if I tell you that I did perform a cursory search, would you not argue that perhaps I have not looked hard enough? Let's stick to the policy my friend: Notability requires evidence! There is no Wikipedia policy that says everyone who sees a non-notable article must invest his valuable time due to a mere chance of the article being actually notable. Fleet Command (talk) 09:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you don't fancy investing the time, policy does ask you to suggest merger or redirection before deletion; the developer or publisher articles would be valid targets in this case. Marasmusine (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-notable material do not merit inclusion in Wikipedia, merged or not. Therefore, I do not merge non-notable contents. Fleet Command (talk) 06:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The inclusion threshold for material is verifiability. You've confused this with notability, which is the guideline for whole article topics. Merger/redirection is also supported by the notability guidelines for products. However, I'm straying from my !vote, we can discuss it further on the talk page if you wish. Marasmusine (talk) 08:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I haven't! You can't create an article and name it: "Non-notable adult computer games" in which you copy and paste the contents of several articles which are on the verge of deletion per lack of notability. These articles are usually deleted per lots of reason such as the lack of notability of the resulting merger, one of the articles of WP:NOT, or per consensus.
But really, do you want me to assume that in the face of such intelligence that you employed to write those words, you never thought for a moment: "But into what article FleetCommand must have merged 7 Sins, if she was an honest Wikipedian?" No! You are smarter to not have considered that. Hence, I conclude that this whole merger fuss is your way of making me look like a dishonest nominator and distracting the attention from the real matter: The article does not establish its notability by providing evidence! i.e. WP:NRVE! Fleet Command (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll provide the link again: WP:PRODUCT; thanks. Marasmusine (talk) 10:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are welcome Fleet Command (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll provide the link again: WP:PRODUCT; thanks. Marasmusine (talk) 10:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The inclusion threshold for material is verifiability. You've confused this with notability, which is the guideline for whole article topics. Merger/redirection is also supported by the notability guidelines for products. However, I'm straying from my !vote, we can discuss it further on the talk page if you wish. Marasmusine (talk) 08:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-notable material do not merit inclusion in Wikipedia, merged or not. Therefore, I do not merge non-notable contents. Fleet Command (talk) 06:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you don't fancy investing the time, policy does ask you to suggest merger or redirection before deletion; the developer or publisher articles would be valid targets in this case. Marasmusine (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And if I tell you that I did perform a cursory search, would you not argue that perhaps I have not looked hard enough? Let's stick to the policy my friend: Notability requires evidence! There is no Wikipedia policy that says everyone who sees a non-notable article must invest his valuable time due to a mere chance of the article being actually notable. Fleet Command (talk) 09:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is that you saw that the article lacked citations, yet your statements imply that you didn't search for any sources yourself. If you had shown clearly that you had, then I would not be opposed to deletion as there would be evidence to support your argument. As it is however, you have made no attempt to improve the article, and instead you appear to be relying only on the assumption that the subject is not notable. As such, I will not support deletion in this instance, unless you can prove the subject is not notable. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 08:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep According to Game Rankings at the very least it was reviewed by three UK newstand magazines; PC Zone, PC Format and PC Gamer. That's multiple instances of reliable non-trivial coverage, notability is covered. The first of which was reprinted online at Computer and Video Games and is now cited, the existing text is also cited, the info's verified. Someoneanother 02:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Lots of sources: “Whilst showing the subject is mentioned in a number of sources, not all sources are reliable and may only be trivial mentions.” You must show that they are not trivial mentions. Fleet Command (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They're reviews, one of which is already cited for all to see. Someoneanother 17:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- First, no, they aren't cited. Second, they must be checked individually and cited in the article. I didn't nominated this article because it doesn't have Google hits. I nominated it because it lacks evidence of notability as required by WP:NRVE. Fleet Command (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep: Oh, wait! I see the article now. The ACTUAL reviews are cited. That's it: Notability asserted. Withdrawing from nomination. Thanks for the notice, Someone Another. Bless you.Fleet Command (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep bad faith nomination. The nominator says: "Because I didn't nominated it because of being unnotable. I nominated it because it does not assert notability. Notability must be claimed with evidence. Fleet Command (talk) 05:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)" AFD is not cleanup. If you believe it is notable, then you leave it be. If you think something should be added, then do so yourself. There seems to be adequate coverage of the game found by others in this AFD, to establish its notability. Dream Focus 06:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another of your plays with words again, eh? You yourself mentioned in one of the last week AfDs that introduction of reliable source is a pillar of Wikipedia not a matter clean up. Why are you opposing yourself now? Because you like this article, you want it kept and you don't dare saying so?
As for me, I have nominated this because this article lack one of these pillars. It only makes us think it is notable while it isn't. Policy says: Notability requires evidence. This article introduces no evidence. Hence it does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia.
Fleet Command (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2010 (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.