Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cross of the Dutchman

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 no consensus - normally WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL would apply, but it appears the game is beyond the design stage. The article is still under construction, so userfication is also appropriate and does not required AfD. Bearian (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cross of the Dutchman[edit]

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

Game that has only been announced (since 2009, release predicted for Q2 2012 at the moment), but hasn't been released and hasn't received significant attention in reliable, independent sources, so fails our notability guideline. Searching for the game, but excluding their own site, only returns 85 distinct Google hits[1], many of those from Wikipedia, flickr, alexa, or the game studio itself. No Google News (archive) hits. Fram (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The game was first announced in November 2009 and under another name: Pier the Great. It received signficant attention back then, and was featured on the cover of a major gaming magazine and on local and national television networks. Then, there was no news for two years and the Studio worked on other (Nintendo DS) games. A month or so ago, a site was launched and the game was officially announced online. It has since received significant attention once again, and the site has been well-viewed and visited by hundreds of people a day, on average. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Even less results with that name[2]. By the way, shouldn't the game be named "Cross of the Dutchmen" instead? Fram (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many results when you search for "Grutte Pier game" or "Pier Gerlofs Donia game". Furthermore I believe the title to be correctly spelled with an a, rather then an e. It literally means as much as: "terror of the Dutch man". Mythic Writerlord (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please indicate which sources can be used to show that this game passes WP:N. Note that repeats of a press release don't count. Fram (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - There have been two different posts on the web's leading pirate(game) website and there was an entry on Blues News. A major gaming magazine featured the game on it's front page back in 2009 when it still went by the name of Pier the Great and was not named CotD yet. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - PS: The fact that French and Dutch sites also picked up on the news and wrote about the game in their own language also clearly indicates that these are not merely "copies" from the official release announcement and of the game's notability. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep At this point, it's nothing but a product announcement - there's barely any mention of the game itself that is not part of the company's own site, apart from a copy of the product announcement itself on several news sites. Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article creator has proven sufficient coverage to satisfy verifiability and likely also notability. --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Many websites both in English aswell as in Dutch and French have picked up on the release announcement and the official site is well visited and has build up a community of interested people in less then one week, indicating the notability of the game. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Popularity is not an indication of notability. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then maybe the fact that this is the largest Dutch game ever to be produced and the only game ever to be produced for which two full years of historical research were required even before making the actual game was taking place? That is, as far as I know, a new gaming record. Also, never before a game was created in which medieval western Europe was entirely recreated, and recreated in such vast detail and as realistically as in this game, CotD. For that reason alone, this game is highly notable and has gained significant interest already. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - All of that may be correct, but you need a reliable source to confirm that for the article. Otherwise, all you have is your own synthesis/original research on the subject.--The Fifth Horseman (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2011 (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) 15:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you post either links to reliable, independent sources giving significant attention to this game (in whatever incarnation), or references for off-line sources like the games magazine? So far, we only have your word for all this and can't verify it. This one you mentioned is hardly "significant coverage" or a reliable source, and this blog you mentioned, while a bit more extensive, isn't a reliable source either. When looking for sources in Dutch, the only one that appears is a gamers forum[3], nothing that satisfies our guidelines. Fram (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You conveniently forgot the French source, by the way. And I believe there also was one in Russian that I found searching the name of the game's main character at the most recent results of this month. Not all sources are online though, as two local newspapers and a gaming magazine also mentioned the game. It definetely is notable enough for a game. And so is Triangle Studios, the Netherlands leading game developer when it comes to Nintendo DS games. As user Masen, above, already pointed out, popularity alone is not an indication of notability... the very scale of this game, however, clearly is. In some ways it even is record-breaking. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Assume good faith, please. Chances are he didn't know about the "French source" you refer to. Also, he's quite right that at this point all we have is your say-so. Provide the references and you'll pretty much have your case made. --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SPAM. - DonCalo (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tell me why this is spam? By all means, DonCalo, enlighten me! It is not at all unusual for articles to be created about games before they are officially released. Take a look at The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, to name one prominent example of this. The game is not expected to be released untill November 2011 yet the article was created as early as 2010. CotD is well-sourced and definetely notable in more then just one way. It may not be as well known as some other games-in-progress but it definetely is a big project, whether or not many people have heard of it or not, it still is a notable project in many ways. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - As it currently stands, given the lack of reliable sources and references and the slightly biased tone it is written in (you are obviously enthusiastic about the game) it can be construed as bordering on WP:PROMOTION. As you may recall, putting a CSD-G11 tag was exactly the first thing I did after noticing and reading it: [4] . Far as Skyrim goes, that game has received significant media coverage as evidenced by the article's references section. --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - As for the slightly biased tone in which the page is written, I already put a npov-tag on it myself so that someone with a more neutral viewpoint might help me with that. I also asked a request for comment on the article, for the same reason. I knew (and know) the article is a far cry from perfect, but I've spend too much time on looking all these things up to see it deleted like this. At least now people are looking into it, and because of this AfD, it get's at least some attention which hopefully will improve the page. I cannot do it alone. ;)
    - The other game indeed got significant media coverage, because it is part of a much bigger franchise and has a much bigger following then CotD has. Still, the idea of a game focused around this particular historical figure has excisted for quite a while and has already received more then significant media coverage in 2009 when it was first released under the name of "Pier the Great". Then there was a period of two years in which there wasn't much news, and now a new game, CotD, has recently been announced for release in mid-2012. Evidence that this game has received significant coverage can be seen in the fact that it was on the television news (local & national) and that it was on the cover of a gaming magazine. The release some two weeks ago was picked up on Dutch, English, French and Frisian websites. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 06:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yesterday this was created... an unknown manga made into a video game to be released in 2012... has not received quite as much attention as CotD has, yet has not been nominated for deletion... Mythic Writerlord (talk) 07:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Frankly, you would do better to provide the sources necessary for this article, instead of repeating your vague assertions time and again, looking for other articles which may be worse, or running to Jimbo to complain. For starters, you have mentioned appearing on the cover of a gaming magazine multiple times now: perhaps you can just once actually give us the name of the magazine, and the date or issue number? If you want us to change our opinion, or if you want anyone else coming here to agree that this should be kept, then you will have to provide actual and good sources, not vague references to French or Russian ones. Fram (talk) 07:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Some sources:
1
2
3
4
5
6 - on de Volkskrant, one of the Netherlands largest newspapers to date
7
8
9 (also mentions the budget at the time for that year: $300.000,-)
10 (on the Dutch gaming industry)
11
12
[5] (about Triangle Studios opening a studio in Dallas, USA)
13
14
- These are just some sources. There is much, much more where that came from. The gaming magazine that featured the game on it's cover is called profyl, I believe. There is a link somewhere. ;) Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, finally. Three groups of sources there: gaming sites, local/regional news sites, and De Volkskrant, the only really good source in my opinion. At least we are getting somewhere, but it isn't enough as far as I am concerned, certainly taking into account that these were sources about the first incarnation of the game, with the different name and a release date already in the past (as you indicate yourself above, "Then there was a period of two years in which there wasn't much news, and now a new game, CotD, has recently been announced for release in mid-2012."). The new press release, change of name, new release date, new platforms it is intended for, all seem to have failed to grab the attention of the reliable sources, and if I'm not mistaken all the sources you provided are from 2009? Fram (talk) 08:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all sources are from 2009, some are though. In the meantime the release date (first set at 2011) has been moved one year forward to 2012. For the rest of it, besides the title, not much has happened. The new announcement was only done to raise awareness for the site, blog and now thriving gaming community of CotD on which articles about the game's progress are written just about every other day.

As I've said, this is just a list of sources that can easily be found searching for either "Grutte Pier game", "Pier the Great", "Triangle Studios", "Grutte Pier spel" (Dutch) and many other possible search words. There is much more where this came from, I could give you another ten sources with ease.

The game did not "fail to grab the attention of reliable sources", also. De Volkskrant would be a relaible source, and so would the Leeuwarder Courant. Other sources are less reliable but nonetheless well-known and visited. How about FOK!, one of the Netherlands leading online communities (if not the largest)? This community quickly picked up on the Volkskrant article and over 200 comments where made. Please do not forget, not all sources are online, not all newspapers and magazines are online; there are also offline sources, quite a few of them.

I hope all this makes clear the Grutte Pier game is in many ways notable and has, in fact, received significant attention since 2009, throughout 2010 and also now, in 2011 (especially the last two months or so since the official site and forums where launched). Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Online communities like fok! don't count as reliable sources. A flurry of news reports after an initial press release, and then nothing from the reliable sources. They seem to be taking a "wait-and-see" approach for the moment, and that seems to me to be a wise course. Fram (talk) 08:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another reliable source: here. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reliable source. From their "about" page: "All of our user’s articles are posted to the website,[...]". If it was included in the printed version of the magazine, things would be different, but appearing on that website is not an example of coverage in a reliable source. Fram (talk) 09:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of reliable, third party references. - Weak Keep - Looks like a bunch more sources were added. I no longer have a problem with it. (Though still not the best either.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there's enough references that discuss this game for it to be considered notable and I have little doubt it will receive a number of reviews upon release. Silverseren^C 23:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ...if it ever gets released. Many games are announced and never released, this one has already been postponed for a year. WP:CRYSTAL applies here. Fram (talk) 12:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are plenty of games that are notable even if they are never released and sometimes because they aren't released. Duke Nukem Forever isn't as good of an example now that it has been released, but it still applies. This game has gotten a rather significant amount of coverage even though it has yet to be released and I believe that coverage trumps any WP:CRYSTAL concerns. Silverseren^C 16:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, WP:CRYSTAL applies to your argument that "I have little doubt it will receive a number of reviews upon release." That doesn't mean that the subject can't be notable already, but your additional argument was a WP:CRYSTAL violation. Fram (talk) 07:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userify for creation once the thing ships and there are some real third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:17, 5 October 2011 (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.