Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firefly Online

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firefly Online[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Firefly Online" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Our job is not to help hype the product for its release in the summer. Sure, fans are waiting for an online game version with bated breath, but the article itself is based almost exclusively on "announcements" . Well, one source has screen shots of the graphics, but these again all originate "exclusively", directly from the publisher. That means all the so-called reliable sources are writing directly from what the publishers are saying about the product. If what they say in the press release that everyone is basing their columns on is wrong, the whole thing falls apart. Understandably, the publishers are getting their publicity ducks all in a row. Let not Wikipedia become one of those ducks.

The product will be notable shortly, but my objection is that it is here prematurely. I would have no objection to it being either redirected to Firefly, or stubbed down until the product is available either as a "proven" product, or an advanced beta. The article needs third party critical commentary, but none of the "reviewers" has had any first-hand experience of the game, so technically these are not reviews; we won't get that until much nearer the release date when true reviewers have had the chance to play the game in its final version and give it a thorough test drive. Ohc ^¡digame! 02:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ohconfucius! Thanks for taking the time to write up an explanation/opinion. What you're trying to say is that, because the game has not been released yet, there are not enough sources that would provide the article with an independent, well-rounded perspective? Thanks, --Bananasoldier (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in short. But it's not strictly about whether the product is on public release or not. It's about the availability of independently verifiable information. What I am saying is that, due to the current dearth of freely-available information about the product, whose launch is months away, even third party sources normally considered "reliable" seem to be wholly reliant on what the publishers say. We see magazines quoting (or even publishing verbatim) manufacturers' press releases all the time, but that does not make these necessarily objective. The only thing that is currently verifiable is that the production company has said certain things. In building an article around these news articles, we may be unwittingly falling for the media hype and not true information. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The game meets the GNG with significant coverage from a variety of independent, reliable sources currently included in the article. As mentioned in the DYK nom, I do not see the article as promotional (nevertheless overly promotional). As for the quality of the information in the sources, this type of sourcing is endemic to the genre and all prerelease video game articles start this way—the RS are reporting what the developer has to give (unless they're getting around the developer somehow?) and we have no reason to not use what the RS deemed worthy for publication. The only other argument I could see is for a redirect if the sourcing was too thin (which I judge to not be the case here), but even that would be a merge conversation and this topic would not qualify for a deletion discussion (AfD). czar ♔ 03:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Furthermore, what I see to be the nom's main contentions are issues with the way video game reporting is done. Referring to the reporting as hype, the "announcements" in ersatz quotes, and the RS as "so-called" all show disdain for sources determined at WP:VG/RS to be reliable. This aside, the article very clearly meets the GNG with its current and dedicated sourcing if we aren't calling the very nature of video games reporting into question. czar ♔ 03:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that I probably wouldn't be here if I hadn't seen the DYK nomination, which now even the proposer admits to being unintentionally promotional. I often read Hi-fi and computing mags, and do note that such articles are "endemic", because people are interested in what's in the development pipeline. And it's exactly because such practice is endemic that we need to discuss this perhaps in this AfD and certainly elsewhere in light of our policy on promotion, paid or otherwise (and, for the avoidance of any doubt, let me categorically state that I'm not accusing or implying any advocacy or paid editing taking place here). Of course, I'm likely to be opposed by fans of VG culture, but I did not intend on being adversarial here. I'm not challenging that these sources are less than reliable when reviewing the products. Different reliable sources are known to be more reliable and authoritative under different circumstances. And just because it's an established industry/publication that has always done things in a particular way, that does not make it non-promotional in nature. Such pre-releasing information of this type does not make it any more objective, any more than if it was Vaporware. I never disputed that the long-awaited product itself will fail WP:GNG, merely that it is premature and cannot be supported by reliable independent information. At present, the sources are reliably quoting what the production company is saying about the product. No more, no less. Summary information about this product already exists in Firefly (franchise), and that alone appears to be sufficient for the product at the current stage of development. And just because the VG industry has a certain modus operandi – away of leaking, sneaking or advance-publishing information, it's a policy that is questionable in Wikipedia terms in that it seems to violate WP:ADVERTISING. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or at worst Merge + Redirect. Pre-release information that may come from the published but appropriately filtered and summarized or commented on by third party/independent reliable sources is not a promotional issue. I do agree that at this little detail so far, summarizing what is known at the franchise article is better, but there's no grounds to delete (hence the merge and redirect, and expanding when it comes out.) --MASEM (t) 06:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) czar ♔ 14:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Masem. I understand where the nomination's argument is, but I don't think it warrants deletion as long as the article properly uses its sources to summarize what's given so far. Sourcing is indeed limited to what the publisher has released (which is normal with unreleased games), but the fact that media has been covering the game establishes notability. I don't see the article as promotional at all. Coverage is coverage, and any newly announced game of notable nature will receive this type of hype. Sure, our job is not to help promote products, but it is our job to cover subjects that are notable through media coverage, which I think this falls under. Deleting the article to avoid following the press bandwagon doesn't make sense to me - all of Wikipedia's articles are subject to how the press, media, and individuals cover various subjects. Whether or not a subject's notability is established from hype doesn't make much of a difference to me, as long as the subject remains notable and reliably covered. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:52, 19 February 2014 (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.