Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astroneer (2nd nomination)

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 keep. A clear consensus for the article to be retained has been established here, and consensus is that the topic meets notability standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Astroneer[edit]

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

This seems to be an indie game of low notability. The current sources used don't seem to be high-tier gaming websites. Even looking at the previous nomination, what sources are actually that notable. I don't think every single, low-impact indie game like this one should have a wikipedia page. Nergaal (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Per close of the last AFD. There's so many sources for this that it's hard to believe WP:BEFORE was followed. All reliables sources, all in just the first page of searching: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. An additional five reliable sources sources I didn't link are already in a refideas template on the talk page. -- ferret (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dude it is an indie game. Just because it was reviewed by highly specialized magazines, does not it make it notable. I have a hard time finding any sort of awards or sale numbers. Just because a few people like and play the game, it doesn't mean it is wort a wikipedia page. I understand having all the games from back in the day, but these days, so many indie developers publish stuff that it is impossible to have an article for each. If this has any staying power I would understand having one but as of now nothing strikes me as passing GNG. It has been 3 months since the talk page mentions some sort of work in progress. But other than gameplay this had nothing mentioned in it. Nergaal (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not cleanup. Besides the fact that video game sources are certainly acceptable for establishing notability, here are some more sources that are not video game specialized, some from the last month: [10][11][12][13][14] -- ferret (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - This is an extremely popular game in the community that I'm surprised AfD was opened (for a second time). See ferret above. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luke, just as information, your !vote here is essentially WP:ILIKEIT. AFD discussions need to be based on policies such as WP:GNG. -- ferret (talk) 02:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret: - Alright. I'd also like to point out what you said above, and how it passed a previous AfD less than six months ago. There is also a thriving community, including a subreddit with 17k subscribers. The article has over a dozen reliable sources as stated by Czar in the previous AfD, which is more than enough to prove notability. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 02:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nergaal, did you click through to the talk page before nominating? Plenty of sources as well as a previous discussion listed there. I recommend withdrawing this one czar 02:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, look here: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/astroneer. Nergaal (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the game isn't released yet and is still early access. Reviews typically wait for release. -- ferret (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So we are ok with early-access indie games now? How low is the actual threshold for games these days? How about wait until the game's actual release to see if there is any sort of blip on the radar? Because the game has been in development for at least 2 years now. Nergaal (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources support it, yes—early access or not. – Rhain ☔ 04:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability been established by sources above. TheMagikCow (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources offered by ferret. -Thibbs (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – plenty of sources exist that help this pass WP:GNG without any difficulty. As far as I'm aware, there has never been any consensus about excluding a game from having an article based on where it was in the development process. As long enough coverage exists, we keep it. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For a game that it in the early access stage, it has gotten significant attention even before reviews or sales trickle in. This is completely reasonable to keep. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above keep votes. A game not yet released can definitely have an article if it meets WP:GNG. _{(Even if it takes awhile...)} ZettaComposer (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - pretty easily passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:35, 16 March 2017 (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.