Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinetica (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kinetica (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability has not been established. In accordance with WP:BEFORE the article has been marked as an unsourced advert for over two years. With no prospect of interest in re-writing this article to address these concerns, this listing for a non-notable game from 8 years ago should be removed or any minor information, that can be sourced, added as a note in PlayStation 2. Wikipedia does not need an article for every video game ever produced. Ash (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. The article would require a significant rewrite in order for it not to sound like an advert. The game itself is also of questionable notability. --Tckma (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's only of questionable notability if nobody looks for sources, there's no need to guess when doing so takes seconds. Someoneanother 23:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @814 · 18:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball keep Per the very first point of WP:BEFORE:- "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Declaring something non-notable without even bothering to type "Kinetica review" into google is a cop-out and is not going to result in a meaningful deletion discussion. The result is three full reviews in the first four results, all from quality sources. Here's another highlighted by the review database Metacritic, itself in the first ten results. Someoneanother 23:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The point here is not what is possible in theory, but that regular editing has already failed to improve the article due to a lack of any interest in this as a potential encyclopaedic article. The guidance of WP:BEFORE is not intended to make anything that can possibly be found on Google with a page of search results un-deletable for all time from Wikipedia with no regard to quality, verifiability or accuracy.—Ash (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The guidance given is that if editing can rectify the problems which make the article a potential deletion candidate then it should edited not put up for deletion, that's not my interpretation it's what you quoted. Ample evidence of notability has been shown, that something hasn't been cleaned-up yet is not a reason to delete. Someoneanother 00:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is based on reliable sources. By reliable sources the guideline means those cited in the article, not those that might be found on search engines or elsewhere but never cited. If there are no sources then by definition, notability has yet to be demonstrated.—Ash (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." Source: WP:N. It is not appropriate to nominate an article unless you have at the very least tried to find sources. Someoneanother 01:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually when I googled this game before raising it for deletion, I did not notice any good quality sources that made a strong case for this game being particularly notable. A few middle of the road reviews, on sites that exist to review every game that comes on the market, with nothing about the design that was novel, did not appear to make a good case for notability. However now after years of the article being tagged as needing sources, you responded to this AFD by adding these reviews, the article at least no longer appears to be just an advert. You will notice in my nomination that I did refer to information that could be sourced, I did not imply that no such information existed somewhere, just that the game had not been demonstrated as notable. I still have no reason to doubt the last part of the nomination: "Wikipedia does not need an article for every video game ever produced."
- You will note similar discussions on interpreting WP:AFD on the associated talk page have been going on with no firm resolution on changing the existing policy.—Ash (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." Source: WP:N. It is not appropriate to nominate an article unless you have at the very least tried to find sources. Someoneanother 01:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is based on reliable sources. By reliable sources the guideline means those cited in the article, not those that might be found on search engines or elsewhere but never cited. If there are no sources then by definition, notability has yet to be demonstrated.—Ash (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The guidance given is that if editing can rectify the problems which make the article a potential deletion candidate then it should edited not put up for deletion, that's not my interpretation it's what you quoted. Ample evidence of notability has been shown, that something hasn't been cleaned-up yet is not a reason to delete. Someoneanother 00:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The point here is not what is possible in theory, but that regular editing has already failed to improve the article due to a lack of any interest in this as a potential encyclopaedic article. The guidance of WP:BEFORE is not intended to make anything that can possibly be found on Google with a page of search results un-deletable for all time from Wikipedia with no regard to quality, verifiability or accuracy.—Ash (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep – not only per Someone another, but also per the multitude of reviews found here. MuZemike 01:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and a fishwack to the nom for misreading WP:BEFORE. Hobit (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2009 (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.