Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gemini Wars

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 Yasht101 13:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gemini Wars[edit]

Gemini Wars (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)

Another WP:CRYSTAL, non-notable promotional que sera sera article. Please show the exciting second party coverage to maintain this in article space. CaptainScreebo Parley! 18:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added a GameSpot UK reference to the article. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 19:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, very in depth thanks. CaptainScreebo Parley! 19:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—Third party coverage found: [1], [2], and probably more, if I kept searching... Livit⇑Eh?/What? 19:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great, two fanboy gamer, "i ejaculate when someone sends me a promo video of a soon to be announced game", sites announcing the game. Have you read the notability guidelines or WP:CRYSTAL, sick of linking to them, do some research yourself, and take your trivia elsewhere. CaptainScreebo Parley! 19:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the jerk, aren't you. SL93 (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm entitled to my opinion, are you aware that Wikipedia has a policy called no personal attacks? CaptainScreebo Parley! 09:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You crossed out part of your comment, but "Have you read the notability guidelines or WP:CRYSTAL, sick of linking to them, do some research yourself, and take your trivia elsewhere." is rude as well especially because Livitup has been editing longer than you have. SL93 (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have replied at WQA as you are probably aware, I was not implying that Livit is a fanboy gamer who etc. etc. and I struck my comment and apologized for the overreaction. As you were informed at WQA responding to someone's perceived incivility with out and out insults will result in both sides being blocked. So I have replaced the tag and ask you kindly not to remove it, as I have chosen to ignore this personal attack, everybody got a bit heated, and I am willing to assume good faith but do not restore your text, thanks. CaptainScreebo Parley! 16:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I crossed it out which is the same thing. Stop removing my comment. SL93 (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. Insisting on putting it back is akin to making the attack, especially when I have said I am willing to AGF and forget about it. From WP:NPA: On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack. The (Personal attack removed) template can be used for this purpose. As this is the case, I request that you leave the template in place and refrain from making such attacks in the future. CaptainScreebo Parley! 16:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can keep it there and crossed out without saying those things in the future. If it's removed in place of a template, it is still there in the history for anyone to view. It is basically the same thing. SL93 (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, that refers only to talk pages. This is not a talk page. SL93 (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Back on topic: Yes, I'm fully aware of all the relevant policies, having done plenty of tours of duty in NPP and AfD. I found non-trivial coverage (in my opinion) in two sources deemed reliable by a subject matter guideline, WP:VG/S. That's enough for me to !vote keep. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 01:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—I've never heard of this game, but there's third party coverage popping up everywhere. Zach Vega (talk to me) 05:22, 29 April 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) 02:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Plenty of coverage out there. I'd suggest the nominator look over WP:BEFORE and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Sergecross73 msg me 05:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, thanks, to the two previous posters, it would be helpful if you posted some links to these masses of third-party coverage. From WP:GNG:
      • "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, ... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention
      • "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline
    • So I'm not really seeing either of those, I apologize for my overreaction above, but all I'm seeing are a bunch of screenshots, and a couple of lines announcing the product on a majority of sites which are, more or less, gaming blogs, and a bunch of videos on DailyMotion and YouTube.
    • From WP:CRYSTAL:
      • Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. While Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate.
    • That's all. CaptainScreebo Parley! 10:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine, if that's the criteria for including soon-to-be-released video games. I'm still not seeing in-depth coverage just trivial, game plot summaries and so on. And my initial reaction was also influenced by the fact that the article originally had about ten links to Camel101's website (as refs, external links) etc. so I assumed this to be another "let's plug our obscure game in development on WP". Try new page patrolling sometime, and see the stuff that you encounter. CaptainScreebo Parley! 16:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Another problem that I have is that if someone disagrees with you, you automatically assume they haven't read the relevant guidelines. I don't know if Sergecross has new page patrolled before, but automatically assuming that he hasn't is odd as well. SL93 (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I haven't New Page Patrolled, no, but I don't appreciate how Screebo is talking down to me, (and everyone else), so much. I've spent much time here at AFD. Please, Screebo, try to tone it down a bit.
        • As far as the article itself goes, it's not going to have the coverage to be a Featured Article any time soon, but not every article has to. It has enough to pass the WP:GNG though. Sergecross73 msg me 16:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SL93 stop trying to stir things up all over the place (including here).
My comment above was a general comment, not specifically directed at you, Sergecross, or anyone in particular, and can hardly be construed as "talking down" to anybody. Other comments on this page such as "because Livitup has been editing longer than you have" or "I've spent much time here at AFD" do sound a little superior, I don't think that I say anywhere that "I'm better than you because". Anyway, you'll get to keep your Gemini Wars article and then we can all go back to doing whatever we do on wiki, and stop squabbling about this notable game. CaptainScreebo Parley! 17:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And you still ignore "*Another problem that I have is that if someone disagrees with you, you automatically assume they haven't read the relevant guidelines." Despite you saying not to squabble, you took me to ANI. SL93 (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You were warned, now grow up and let's move on. CaptainScreebo Parley! 17:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not scared of you. I will move on if you withdraw the ANI report, but don't tell me to grow up. SL93 (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GameSpot and Strategy Informer are proper sources to note it is being taken seriously versus other indie-developers. While it may be a bit early (as the game as not released) I see no reason in deleting the page at this point under WP:CRYSTAL as it is reliable, sourced and essentially a given that the game will release in May. The articles may have his indie status pegged pretty well, but this is definitely notable and it would only be a waste to delete it only to have it be recreated in less then a month from now when it actually hits stores. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As per the significant coverage in independant, reliable sources presented above; also because of a seeming lack of good faith by the nominator in his nom. & subsequent comments. Games "in development" or "unreleased" do not automatically fail WP:CRYSTAL, as long as notability is otherwise established. Salvidrim! 19:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but kindly keep your opinion about my lack of good faith to yourself, this is not the issue here, I am not a specialist on the criteria for notability of unreleased video games and, as noted below, the coverage is not very in-depth and a bit scarce on the ground. I was genuinely concerned that this was another attempt to plug a non-notable, low impact product (in this case a video game), obviously I have stepped into contentious territory, I would just like to point out to all my detractors on this page that I *do* play video games and have been doing so for over 30 years, so I have nothing against video games per se, I just object to Wikipedia being used as a promotional tool for unremarkable junk (or people for that matter). This debate shows that the game is considered to be a reasonably important event and so the article will be kept. CaptainScreebo Parley! 11:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is what naturally happens when you come into a situation so aggressively, when you're "not a specialist". People doubt your motivations. I had figured you were unfamiliar with WP:BEFORE or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Other's doubted your "good-faith". Reasonably conclusions. But it's pointless to bicker about, there's a pretty clear consensus to keep here. Sergecross73 msg me 11:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I said not a specialist in the VG/N or VG/RS or whatever you call it, yeah so I had big boots on and it was a bit late at night, but who's bickering? I'm certainly not, I just said above, "okay, so it's notable, let's all move on". I don't just hit XfD without trying to research the subject by the way, although I do find that WP has differing standards as to what is considered "reliable in-depth coverage in independent sources", particularly concerning certain cultural areas (video games, music, anime or comic book stuff). CaptainScreebo Parley! 13:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as passing WP:GNG per reliable, secondary, independent VG sources above. It is not released, but media has given it reasonable attention and coverage. Ditto above, as WP:CRYSTAL does not automatically apply to unreleased products, though it does loom over this one a bit. Granted, this is not a lot of coverage, and definitely not in-depth in all of sources, but it's decent coverage in more than few outlets. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:52, 29 April 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/Gemini_Wars&oldid=1136111870"