Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Massacre: The Game of Modern Religious Genocide (2nd nomination)

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. John254 01:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Massacre: The Game of Modern Religious Genocide[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Muslim Massacre: The Game of Modern Religious Genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This game was not notable at the time of the article's creation (i.e. the game itself). The original sources only asserted notability for a proposed article titled Muslim Massacre game controversy.

Following the usual arguments to keep at the original Afd that "Google says yes", the article, as both a game article or a controversy article, still stands as a clear violation of WP:NOT#NEWS.

Per the essay WP:NOTNEWS, this article has not demonstrated any reason why the Muslim Massacre game controversy is worthy of an article. The controversy has generated no further debate beyond the initial news sources. The controversy has generated no lasting cultural, social or intellectual changes in video gaming or the wider world. The controversy has not been the subject of any third party comment or analysis beyond the initial news sources. At best, as the passage of time has shown, this content is, and always was, something for Wikinews rather than Wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


NOTICE Per the Afd guidelines, please actually read the nomination before you register an opinion in this debate, "speedy" or otherwise. I want to assume this is done by everybody, but based on the first three contributors, I have doubts this is actually happening. MickMacNee (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That the first three contributors didn't agree with your argument is far from "people not reading your nomination". - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I feel it's notable. It has appeared in more than several media outlets (as per first AfD). There has been considrable controversy around the game's creation. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 16:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
note: So eager to keep was the above voter, that they voted before I had even created the Afd page. MickMacNee (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: I saw this on my watchlist and then saw the page. There was no warning from the creator of this AfD that this was still in construction. No need to scorn me. LOTRrules (talk · contribs · email) 17:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought the page being a redlink would have shown the Afd was still under-construction. MickMacNee (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These comments, MickMacNee, are really inappropriate. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Per previous Afd" does not address the reasons for nomination. MickMacNee (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Facts which aren't disputed by me in the nomination. MickMacNee (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sufficiently so. You disputed the notability and how well-sourced it was at all points, and it was determined back in the day that it is notable. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Define "subject". There are two elements to the content, the game and the controversy. A claim of notability made under WP:TOY for this sort of amateur unlicensed release is clearly riding on the back of NEWS coverage of the controversy. One review source was quite explicit about this - he was not initially going to review the game until he saw the controversy, he stated he regretted having been conned into doing so because the game in his opinion clearly would not have warranted any notability as a game. The controversy is what needs to have demonstrated lasting third party comment beyond initial news sources, in order to not violate NOT#NEWS and justify the content - it hasn't. MickMacNee (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — I may be missing something, but it looks like there are plenty of reliable sources that establish notability. I also thought that WP:NOT#NEWS pertains primarily to articles about events and not necessarily concrete objects like video games that are backed by print and/or online sources. MuZemike (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about an event, the controversial release of a video game. It is simply gaming the Afd process to say that the presence of news sources that only exist because of the temporarily controversial event can then be transplanted to establish notability for the game that, had it not been for the controversial event, would never have been notable as a game. It's totally ass about face. MickMacNee (talk) 04:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like the article is not about the "event" of the controversial release of a video game, but is about the game itself and the controversy it caused. I don't think WP:NOT#NEWS applies here for this reason. A game that caused controversy covered in multiple reliable sources isn't akin to an event that happened to be announced in a newspaper. Wiw8 (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate it if you assume good faith and be more civil rather than accusing me of gaming and being "ass about face." In other words. It's not like anyone is out to get you or anything. MuZemike (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —MuZemike (talk) 00:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —MuZemike (talk) 00:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, you require "third party comment or analysis beyond the initial news sources", right? here you go. Juzhong (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Non admin AFD closure as keep at 11am, 21st Dec by User:Neurolysis here. Closure reverted at 11:40am as premature by User:MickMacNee here. Wiw8 (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - at least two of the citations provide an actual game review, providing commentry beyond the event itself. I understand the nominator's application of NOT#NEWS, and indeed all the references in the article are from September (it's not a subject that has "received significant coverage over a period of time".) But aren't most games reviewed in the month that they are released anyway? Marasmusine (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - subject has received significant coverage in a wide range of multiple reliable sources, most of which specifically discuss this game and the controversy in detail, rather than just making passing mentions. This article therefore satisfies WP:N and WP:V, the sources satisfy WP:RS, so I can't see a valid reason for deletion. Whether the article was notable at the exact time of its creation is not relevant now, as long as it has become notable at some point since then, which this has. Also, it is not necessary to show ongoing media coverage and interest in order to pass WP:N because notability is not temporary. Wiw8 (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A note about my WP:SNOW closure, SNOW is based on a demonstration that a discussion will blatantly close in a particular way, it does not require any specific criteria. My close was based on the fact that the keep votes are supported by policy, making the nominator's argument null. — neuro(talk) 19:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with your analysis of the debate as a snowball keep, I suppose it could be argued that the nominator was still commenting heavily in an attempt to make their case, which is one of the suggested criteria for not snowball closing. However, that could have been brought up in a deletion review if really felt necessary. While administrators can revert non-admin closures they believe were premature, I don't think non-admins are supposed to simply revert a closure, regardless of whether it was non-admin. Wiw8 (talk) 09:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball Keep as offensive as the game is, it's pretty much a textbook definition of a notable game. There are a lot of reliable third-party sources that have covered this game because of its controversy. Sure, the controversy was braindead shock value that generated a flash of cheap publicity rather than any enduring impact. But notability is not temporary. An entirely notable game that can be written about in an encyclopedic manner. Randomran (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2008 (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/Muslim_Massacre:_The_Game_of_Modern_Religious_Genocide_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138105240"