Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legionwood: Tale of the Two Swords

Add links
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). —cyberpower ChatOnline 16:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legionwood: Tale of the Two Swords

[edit]
Legionwood: Tale of the Two Swords (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completing nomination for IP editor 31.220.203.74. Their rationale, posted on the article's talk page, is posted verbatim below. On the merits, I have no opinion - though I have advised the IP editor that more detail would be helpful, as their original statement is quite brief. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable. Lacks significant coverage. 31.220.203.74 (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Googling for "Legionwood" on Google Books, News, and News archives turns up nothing much of interest, just a false positive from a fantasy book as well as this Polish article, which, when translated, appears to be a promotional piece. The game does have entries on various websites described in the WP:VG/S source guideline, but they only establish its non-notability further: its Metacritic entry, for example, indicates that it has received no reviews thus far, clearly failing to meet the general notability guideline. CtP (t • c) 16:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to weak delete, as I am unsure of the reliablilty of Digitally Downloaded and can't verify if PC PowerPlay gives significant coverage of the game. CtP (t • c) 21:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It definitely seems notable to me, as it does have reviews and coverage as pointed out by the comment above. I'm confused as to how the game having no Metacritic rating establishes non-notability. The general notability guidelines state that notability is established by having independent sources mention the subject, and there appear to be at least six of these sources in this article. I'm not familiar with the notability guidelines for video games, but I looked at the RPG Maker VX article and found an article for a similar game to this one which appears to have the same amount of coverage and also has a rating of zero on Metacritic. To me, this establishes that there are other indicators of notability, though I am not familar with either of these games, so I cannot comment on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.144.195.14 (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. At least six? Looking at the article's references, 1. isn't independent, 2. doesn't have significant commentary, just basic game data, 3-4. aren't independent, 5. is a review of the game (for what it's worth, it isn't considered a reliable source, and has said to be unreliable in the past [1], 6. is 5.'s review with an interview 7. doesn't have significant commentary, just basic game data, 8. is user-submitted content, 9. is a personal blog with one review, 10. is user-submitted content, 11. isn't significant commentary, 12. isn't independent. Sources should be independent and reliable. 31.220.203.74 (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This may be the case. Just want to point out though that the RPG Revolution reference is not user-generated content. I happen to have a passing familiarity with that site, and it is a corporate entity (owned and run by iEntry) and members of staff are assigned to write reviews - ordinary users are not able to post a review for a game there. Also, following your link to [2], it appears that Digital Something and Digitally Downloaded are actually not the same website. The URLs for both are different, for one, and they have a different homepage and content.
      • Comment. Oops, my bad on the Digitally Downloaded website. So take away the unreliability point, and just have the not yet considered reliable point, for whatever that's worth. As for the RPG Revolution comment, that's wrong. On that link, there's a link titled "Review this game", which you can seemingly click and log in to review. 31.220.203.74 (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right, my bad on that one. However, I recall that button not allowing you to submit a review unless you are staff on the site. That sire also has (had) a dedicated staff of reviewers who reviewed nominated games. this review was posted in 2009 but it is listed as an "Official Review". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 03SadOnions (talk • contribs) 16:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • My bad again on that one: it appears that review was archived off the site long ago. I found the link through Google, but it asks you to log in to access to archived content. I do not have an account for that site, so I genuinely can't speak for that review, however it is listed as an "Official" one which is written by the staff of the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 03SadOnions (talk • contribs) 16:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yeah, I understand your point, but I'm unsure that a forum post game review makes the site reliable or helps establish the notability of this game. 31.220.203.74 (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • The "Official" review was apparently originally posted on the website proper, rather than the forums (as there still appear to be some games in their listing where the staff reviews are still displayed) though as Legionwood seems to have been removed from the listing by its creator, the only version left of that review is as a forum post. I'm not sure how that review linked above (the user generated one) seems to exist, when searching "Legionwood" on that site makes it apparent that the listing was removed. The forum post, however, is evidence that the review does exist and that the staff of that website did make an offical review of the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 03SadOnions (talk • contribs) 16:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are two more reviews for the game on N4G.com and here (despite what Metacritic says about the game having no reviews) and the author himself was apparently interviewed in this magazine (page 25). In response to the previous comment, other RPG Maker games featured on Wiki don't appear to have any more coverage than Legionwood or have similar coverage - I don't think it's very common for these types of games to be reviewed on Metacritic etc. though they do get coverage elsewhere, eg. I received my copy of this game on a magazine cover disc (PC Powerplay if I remember, could be something else though)03SadOnions (talk • contribs) 02:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment that's like Aveyond and Eternal Eden though, they werent reviewed on IGN or gamespot, they just have entries there. i looked at them and they dont have any of those professional sources either. Sorry... i'm not from wikipedia but i was linking this page to a friend so he could know about the game, saw it was being deleted and thought i'd comment. 124.180.161.51 (talk) 10:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I don't wish to duplicate my comment from another point too much, but the N4G link isn't a review, it just links to the Digitally Downloaded review. Then, the interview you link to is again from Digitally Downloaded, a source doesn't appear to be reliable [3]. 31.220.203.74 (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. My rationale for creating this article is that the sources appear to be on par with the sources for other RPG Maker games on Wikipedia. For example, I would point to ==Eternal Eden==, which I used as the basis for Legionwood's article, where RPGFan is not a website listed in WP:VG/S and there are no Metacritic ratings, either. Similarly, the majority of ==Aveyond=='s citations come from RPG Fan as well as Game Tunnel, which is affiliated with the Indie Gaming Magazine that is cited in Legionwood's article. I'm new to Wikipedia, but I must admit that I don't understand how this game is not notable when there are other examples of similar games with a comparable level of coverage. I created this article after I played the game on a cover disc for this magazine - would that be a notable reference? 03SadOnions (talk • contribs) 15:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does the content in the magazine supply significant coverage of the game? It looks like a reliable source. (You'd be correct that those two websites are not the same.) CtP (t • c) 15:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, my confusion of those sources was my fault there. Sorry about that. As for your point about other articles existing, with similar references, I echo what CtP said. 31.220.203.74 (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Although the online back-issues are no longer available, the game was included on a cover disc in December 2009, along with a small overview in the print magazine (in a feature about freeware game-dev tools, if I remember). The magazine is the leading PC gaming magazine in Australia. That's where I played the game. I would add it as a source to the article, but I'm not aware how one verifies a printed source that is not online? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 03SadOnions (talk • contribs) 15:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep. i can confirm that the game was in PC Powerplay... an early release of the game was included on the cover disc of the december 2008 (it was NOT 2009 as 03sadonions said) issue and an interview with the creator along with a small half page review is in a section of the magazine called "community bunker" - i have a copy of this magazine. the game is known as "tales of worlds" in the magazine but the author of the game retitled it in a later overhaul. in the interview, the creator mentions his intention to do this and also gives background on the inspiration for the game. 124.180.161.51 (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Digitally Downloaded review has been the only item presented thus far that shows any hope for the article passing the GNG (other than PC Powerplay, possibly). The IGM review contains no significant coverage, just one original sentence and two paragraphs lifted from promotional material. The N4G review, as 31.220.203.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) correctly points out, simply redirects to the Downloaded review, while RMVX Reviews is clearly not a reliable source. The Downloaded interview does not supply significant coverage of Legionwood (it is merely a discussion of the creator's expereieces with RPG Maker, the program used to make it, as well as the future of his career). If other articles have similar problems with notability, then that's not a reason to keep this one, it's a reason to nominate them for deletion, too. CtP (t • c) 15:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not trying to justify this article's existence with other articles, I'm just pointing out that RPG Maker games in general do not appear to receive the type of coverage in WP:VG/S and that there are many examples of notable games from this platform, despite them not receiving the same level of coverage normally reserved for games with propriety engines. Googling the term "Legionwood" brings up 8 pages of links to coverage for this game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 03SadOnions (talk • contribs) 15:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason I don't like using general Google searches for sources is because Google pulls in everything, both reliable and unreliable (sources on Wikipedia must meet this guideline), and because of this, arguments based on the number of Google hits are discouraged by some. It's better to use Google Books or Google News archives in my experiences, but they admittedly leave some things out that a general Google search will pick up. CtP (t • c) 16:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Weak Keep. So, summarising all the previous comments, we have 3 reliable sources for this game (Digital Downloaded, PC Powerplay and the IGM list), right? Considering the article's scope - a freeware game - this seems to be a good amount of sources. Don't most game journalists only review commercial games? I've also noticed that this article is linked to from the RPG Maker article in the "See Also" section and is listed in the List of freeware video games, so these mentions will need to be edited out if this page is deleted.
  • Delete - Keep arguments unconvincing. No signs that the digitallydownloaded.net source is reliable, it's the first issue of a digital magazine which does not seem professional. Trivial mention in PC Powerplay. No reviews on Metacritic. - hahnchen 14:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leaning Keep Another Australian here - I can confirm that the coverage in PCP Dec '08 issue is definitely more than a trivial mention. There is an interview with the creator present on the disc that gives a lot of background on the game, and two page feature article that gives a significant commentary of the game (which was in development at the time) as well as two or three other indie games. Each game's "review" is roughly half a page in length. Editing at a later time: the Digital Download article, on closer inspection, doesn't appear to be in the first issue of the magazine, either. If you click on the magazine archive, there are several published issues before the April one. The site also appears to be an offshoot of N4G as most of its content also appears on that site, and N4G IS listed as a reliable source in WP:VG/S. Also, to me, a 0 rating in Metacritic isn't really indicative of anything, because Metacritic rarely counts reviews that are from Indie Gaming sites (such as IGM, Game Tunnel, RPG Fan, which are in fact the usual avenues of coverage for RPGM games rather than IGN or Gamespot etc) or print-only magazines (PCPowerplay). For professional games, Metacritic is a great source, but for most freeware games it doesn't really indicate anything, as indie games are rarely reviewed in publications counted by Metacritic. A recent example would be the free game Slender, which is certainly notable but has no reviews on Metacritic or in mainstream gaming media outside of a small commentary on par with Legionwood's PCP mention.143.238.47.84 (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Leaning a little less towards Keep, on second thought, since I've never actually seen an RPG Maker game have any reviews listed on Metacritic, nor any reviews by a high tier professional source (rather than say Gamezebo or something) so in that sense the game may not be notable due to being an RPG Maker game. My argument about freeware games rarely getting anything more than a trivial mention in mainstream media archived by Metacritic (ie. Slender or even the Chzo Mythos games by Yahtzee Croshaw) still stands though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.238.47.84 (talk) 05:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • N4G is explictly listed as an unreliable source at WP:VG/S. The Digitally Downloaded magazine is the first issue, this would not have mattered if it were say the first issue of PC Powerplay, but the Digitally Downloaded website gives off an impression of amateurism and a lack of professional accountability. Who are the writers? What's the company's pedigree? PC Powerplay is a reliable source, but if that's the only reliable source ever to have covered the game, it's hard to justify its Wikipedia inclusion based on that alone. There are plenty of indie games and freeware games on Wikipedia with multiple reliable sources, such as To the Moon (video game) and Façade (interactive story). Sure, the coverage those two have received has been fairly exceptional in this space - that's why they're notable. - hahnchen 14:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I normally don't believe RPG Maker games are notable enough to appear on Wikipedia due to failing to receive enough coverage, though this Legionwood game does seem to be a big deal - it's pretty much the ONLY freeware RPG Maker game that's ever received so much coverage to appear in magazine cover discs, be reviewed by sources outside of the RPGM community - which is usually very insular - among other things. In that context, it's pretty notable, though of course, this doesn't really make it Wikipedia worthy. However, if you check the site on which it is distributed, it has been downloaded nearly 18,000 times since last month (which, according to the author, is when, I believe, an enhanced build was uploaded) and is the single most downloaded game in the entire official RPG Maker game database (official stats here), by a long shot. It was even featured on the front page of the actual RPG Maker site through July/August (though is no longer there, sadly and I do not know how to access a page verifying that it WAS there - Google Cache maybe), hand picked by the staff who run the site and distribute the RPG Maker program, which has to be a reliable source according to Wikipedia because it's a professional site run by the people who distribute the actual software used to make the game (which is Japanese gaming company Famitsu/Enterbrain). Also, I'm not quite sure where hahnch is getting the idea that the issue of Digitally Downloaded that was referenced is the first issue - anyone who actually looks at the backlist on their website will clearly see that it isn't. Though this could be a moot point as I, personally, do not know if they are a reliable source (though they list Kotaku as a sister site).124.181.127.71 (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. From looking on the link, that appears to be 17315 downloads in total (clicking back in past months sees the number decline), not "since last month". As for "by a long shot", there are two games beneath the one you pointed out that are within 5% of downloads of that game. Additionally, rpgmaker.net is not an official website, rpgmakerweb.com is, so it doesn't seem that those staff "distribute the RPG Maker program". 11:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Comment/ Just pointing out there that if one clicks the "downloads" tab on the game's page, they will notice that the download number is specifically assigned to the build of the game that is uploaded and is not a total number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.249.89 (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • If that was the case then the game would have had 17420 downloads in less than 7 days. As I pointed out before, the number of downloads in the thread appears to be the total (clicking back in past months sees the number decline). 31.220.203.74 (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Legionwood:_Tale_of_the_Two_Swords&oldid=1223521494"