Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yarn Yoshi

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 redirect to List of Yoshi video games. I don't think anybody reasonably claims this is non-notable, there is no doubt in anyone's mind this'll eventually be FA material; it can be un-redirected whenever more content is available. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 21:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yarn Yoshi[edit]

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

This is not yet a notable topic that is explicitly excluded by the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball policy "short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate". Lacks detailed coverage in independent quality reliable sources beyond that of the products development announcement. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 21:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Screenshots and video of the game have been released, and there's a good amount of coverage from reliable third-party sources. There may not be too many details about the game right now, but I can see more information coming in the next few months, and this article should be kept as a stub article that will be updated with more information as it comes. The game itself is notable, since it's being developed by a major video game company, and it's part of a major video game series. Lugia2453 (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but "The game itself is notable, since it's being developed by a major video game company, and it's part of a major video game series" is an example of inherited notability, and the rest of your rational conveniently ignores the What Wikipedia is not policy, the sources that exist are just reporting on the product announcement, with no clear release date or actual game to review they are basicly speculating and as an encyclopedia we don't do that. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 01:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you further explain why you think it is part of inherited notability? From how I read that section this article seems fine to exist looking at the examples and this part "Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums." Also seems more than just a product announcement with the Gameplay and Development sections, so for now Keep.--sss333 (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To say something is notable because it is created by someone or thing that is notable, which is what Lugia2453 did, is claiming that it is notable by association or inheritance. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 01:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Yoshi video games. Not enough information to hold an article, not needed until more is known. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Is Wikipedia not a free resource? Besides, pages like Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon, Call of Duty: Black Ops II, Super Mario Galaxy 2, Halo: Reach and currently Destiny (video game) and even Upcoming Super Smash Bros. video game has or started out with significantly less information than what Yarn Yoshi currently has. I call bias on this one. Why was none of these hundereds of articles considered for deletion/redirect and one that better qualifies than most is? Even Black Ops II started as an article with complete speculation, and didn't even get nominated. The current revision of Yarn yoshi has none whatsoever. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 01:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and those articles at least have/had significant information and plenty of sources. This article is pathetic. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 05:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Blake is absolutely right. At least with the Upcoming Smash Bros. of which I've maintained pretty much since it's creation, was brought to AFD twice, and was only kept because there was so much coverage on the title, even when the game was first announced. There was a detailed "Iwata Asks" article released pretty much right after it was announced, so there were things to put in the article. The same cannot be said about Yarn Yoshi. Sergecross73 msg me 18:13, 8 February 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) 02:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Yoshi series article. There very little content here, even less than what would seem at first glance. The intro paragraph and Development sections are almost identical, outlining bare bones details like the the date it was announced and who the dev team is, and the Gameplay section seems to be primarily WP:OR-based personal observations based off of someone watching the trailer, as far as I can tell, since there are no sources provided for that part. If you strip it down to the core confirmed information, there really isn't much more than a sentence or two's worth of info, which can be easily be put in the Yoshi article. I'm certain it will be notable, but right now it's just WP:TOOSOON. Sergecross73 msg me 19:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate RazorEye saying this is "bias" is a poor excuse to keep this article. I'm saying incubate because as time draws near to the game's release more information will be made available. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 19:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 20:26, 10 February 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.