Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murasaki Baby

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. postdlf (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murasaki Baby[edit]

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

Not yet notable. Fiddle Faddle 08:25, 21 August 2013 (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) 14:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Kind of wish the article creator would slow down a bit. It seems to be what they do; start up an article on a just-announced game with a mere singular sentence and source. Not making much of an effort to meet the WP:GNG...though there is more info available as well... Sergecross73 msg me 15:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Note that I'm not the creator and have made changes including the removal of the inappropriate "hoax" flag. I was logged in for all of my changes, I promise the IP addresses are one or more other persons. The game was just announced. I wish the original creator of the article would have waited longer though so that we wouldn't have to have this discussion. Faddle, I know you're sad it took me 5 minutes to easily show it wasn't a hoax but I wish you would drop your vendetta to get this deleted and leave it up to others. There are more sources and information coming while the game conference this was announced at continues, at least give us a week.WhereAmI (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I do agree that the CSD/hoax claim was pretty poorly thought out. A simple google search should have cleared that up in a matter of seconds. However, I'm not unsure as to whether or not it meets the WP:GNG yet or not. Seems like most sources just confirm the game exists. Articles aren't always kept if all there is, is 20 sources all rewording/paraphrasing the same announcement... Sergecross73 msg me 16:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Comment Assuming good faith is a requirement, please keep personal remarks out of your arguments. Since details are emerging it seems most sensible to delete the article and await notability. The absolute bar to entry here is lack of notability. If it hasn't got that then it doesn't belong here. It may exist, but that does not make it notable. The initial article looked precisely like a hoax, one title, a reference to something entirely different. In this version the game has no notability, no track record. Fiddle Faddle 16:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Personally I would have likely created a redirect to an article since the game has been officially announced but details sparse. But as this is created on an announcement from a major convention, it is likely to be a notable game based on the publisher and credentials behind it, and makes no sense to delete at this point. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Likely" is not "is". Major developers have made big announcements and not followed through before, so an announcement does not necessarily make something notable: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (particularly see #5). — Gwalla | Talk 20:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Except there's gameplay and plenty of news articles that show it exists and is likely to follow through. This isn't a 'likely' thing. I stopped editing a long time ago because of you people that get your jollies off by deleting contributors work and I don't see any of your edits being interests in video games. In fact most of your work is coming in to the articles for deletion pages. If you don't have an interest that's fine but don't tread on others, you're the worst kind of wikipedian in my opinion. WhereAmI (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Actually, of my 100 most recent edits, a grand total of 3 are !votes on AfD, and that goes back to 2011 since I'm only on here intermittently. Most of my edits are minor fixes and reverting vandalism. And this is the second time in this discussion that you've resorted to ad hominem attacks against someone you disagree with. It's not helping your case. Back on topic, WP:CRYSTAL #5 states, and I quote, "While Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Looking at the reference links in the article, the two reliable sources (the third link is a press release on the Playstation.com blog and thus a primary source) are short and contain very little information, some of which ("Players apparently solve problems by interacting with her...") is speculation. — Gwalla | Talk 20:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was on the fence for a while, but there have been some rather detailed previews published, beyond just rehashes of the announcement, so I think there's enough to warrant meeting the WP:GNG. (Beyond every video game websites under the sun doing an article on its announcement, there's detailed coverage from reliable sources such as http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-08-24-the-human-touch-the-brilliance-of-murasaki-baby and http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/PS+Vita/Murasaki+Baby/news.asp?c=53298 - for example.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - most of the main video game websites have article(s) about this upcoming game many of which speak positively - [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Therefore the 'not yet notable' does not stack up from my perspective. Stevo1000 (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2013 (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.