Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FIFA Online 3

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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA Online 3[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Nearly all the sources appear to be from the company. From a Google search I didn't see any articles that looked like were not simply reposts of press releases from the company. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Polygon, Korean Herald, Sportskeeda and IGN all at least talk about the game in some way. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed links: Korean Herald, Sportskeeda — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - notability is questionable, seems a promotional article as per the sources added. Drat8sub (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see a problem with overall notability in web search, clearly no one is interested in WP:BEFORE, Lee pointed to some decent links above, even businesswire.com wrote an article and that's saying something. Article is in a poor state, but that is not a reason to eliminate it. There are lots of other links for the game in other language sources, seems like their is some reception from Asian websites. I don't think nominator did an extensive enough search! Govvy (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: I would appreciate it if you would remove the accusation clearly no one is interested in WP:BEFORE. That is not true. As I said in the beginning, I did a Google search (this plus some others) and I didn't find anything substantial (Please look at the first 20 entries). I saw the Business Wire post, which read like a press release, and I quickly dismissed it as WP:PROMO: Business Wire's about page says "Business Wire, a Berkshire Hathaway company, is the global leader in press release distribution and regulatory disclosure."

As to the sources provided by Lee Vilenski, I tried looking at them, and two of the four links don't work. I am not sure if the other two count as WP:RS or not. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you got so offended! I really don't think you did a good enough web search. I only loaded three of the four links, but for Sport Skeeda, my search AI adjust to this link. koreaherald.com, didn't load. But I certainly felt I saw enough sources in a google search that makes me feel the article should pass GNG. Seems like it was more pushed for the Asian market, saw reviews of the game I could not read or translate. Example articles for the push to the Asian market like techinasia.com, bangkokpost.com. This article is one month old from Indonesia [1] about termination in Asia to make way for FIFA Online 4. Govvy (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you revised your meaning in the response to something softer. I find it irritating to be accused of not doing a WP:BEFORE, when I have done it, having spent a significant amount of time on it, and the sources I looked at did not appear to me to meet WP:GNG. Editors have different experiences and knowledge of sources, especially in fields they do not know much about. I have virtually no knowledge of current video games or the best sources for it, so it's a lot harder and time consuming for me to access sources like www.polygon.com and IGN, that may just be sites used to promote games or user-generated content, and even mainstream publications like bangkokpost.com, that may also be user-generated rather than truly WP:INDEPENDENT WP:SECONDARY WP:RS. When I see an article like this that is almost all WP:PROMO from the company, and I can't find enough sources I feel for sure to be good enough establish WP:GNG, I think I should be able to submit it to WP:AfD to have other editors look at it, without being accused of failing to do WP:BEFORE, when I did, and nothing in clearly reliable sources in WP:RS/P like NYT, WaPo, etc. comes up. It just seems an unnecessary attack another editor's good faith attempt to get rid of articles that appear to be WP:PROMO.

I brought it here so that others who know the sources better can decide, and I appreciate you offering sources. I would just rather you provide the sources rather than attack the editors who didn't find them and who are making a good faith attempt to rid the encyclopedia of WP:PROMO.

As to the sources you are providing: I would be willing to change my !vote to a keep, if you can make it clear why you think the sources are WP:RS -and- more specifically why you believe any particular published article is not user-generated, a press release, promo, or pay-to-play "news" advertising. I do appreciate your help and experience in that regard. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I do see that IGN is in WP:RS/P. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources seem to be promotional, per nominator's rationale, and there is no evidence of notability, per Giant Snowman. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 21:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is notable enough to have an article, and also FIFA Online 2 and FIFA Online 4 have articles, so why would we delete this one? If you want it deleted, you would have to delete FIFA Online 2 and 4. Another possible option would be to Merge the article into one article called FIFA Online (series). Matthewishere0 (talk) 06:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FIFA Online 2 and FIFA Online 4 aren't exactly shining examples of well-writen articles that justify their intermediate release to also have one. Both rely overly on primary and tertiary sources, with secondary coverage almost nowhere to be found. I redirected FIFA Online 4 to the series article (whicht already exists, bye the way) for now. I'm a bit hesistant in regards to FIFA Online 2 and left a note regarding this on its talk page. IceWelder [✉] 19:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In Korea, FIFA Online 3 is currently the 2nd most popular PC game. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not being notable. A subject's popularity does not mean it automatically deserves a Wikipedia article. I could find no sources that indicate that this game is notable enough to warrant its own article. There's also some weird, baseless accusations being tossed around here which is inappropriate for a deletion discussion. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 17:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to FIFA Online video games (which is about to be renamed "FIFA Online") or alternatively delete. Coverage is extremely thin; there is some coverage of announcements in reliable sources, but nothing that goes in-depth with the topic. It being relatively popular in one specific country does not make it notable in its own right, WP:GNG still applies. I would even do the same for other games in the series that are similarly not notable. IceWelder [✉] 18:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Icewelder. I think it's ok to let it incubate as a series article for now. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- as proposer, I am also okay with a merge. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Icewelder as well. Searching for more sources, I only came up with a Destructoid mention (linked here [2]) but nothing else on top of the weak sources already listed here. Nomader (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge probably is the best decision here, but there doesn't yet seem to be a consensus for any particular decision just yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to pass WP:GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources? --David Tornheim (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - most of this article is better covered in the main FIFA article. MiasmaEternal^TALK 05:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Benefit of the doubt as there is seemingly a decent spread of sources and the deletion arguments are unconvincing. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources? --David Tornheim (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2020 (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.