Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invisible, Inc.

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible, Inc.[edit]

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

Does not meet the notability guidelines as it is applied to video games and other media, and per WP:FUTURE - 5.Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements ColonelHenry (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What notability guideline for video games are you referring to? I could not find one. Regarding WP:FUTURE I believe the article should be kept since it is not a mere product announcement, but an already playable product that is receiving attention from reliable sources. The article consists solely of verifiable encyclopedic information, and much more about the game could be added to the article, particularly by looking under its previous name since the game recently changed its name. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC) edit It meets the GNG as it is covered by many independent reliable sources. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Odie5533 (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources available. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First to comment on the current sources in the article, it is the same bit of news - the renaming, so really there is fluff. That said, 1) there are other sources from the original launch of the alpha access [1], [2] (among some); 2) this is a game by a noted developer, Klei Entertainment with several highly recieved titles, and it is unlikely this one will not get more attention in the future as it continues in alpha access. Personally, I wouldn't have created the article, and I would support a merge to Klei Entertainment (as I would have recreated a redirect on its announcement if I wanted to), but there's no reason at all to delete an article that is likely going to be expanded in the future. --MASEM (t) 00:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Ordinarily, WP:TOOSOON/WP:WAF as there cannot be proper reception without a finished product and thus no critical commentary other than speculation by the press from videos and pre-release versions. That said, the press has directly covered it more than upcoming games usually get covered up to WP:GNG standards (besides perhaps in-depth-ness as per previous reason) and of course a game by Klei will get WP:VG/RS press coverage on release regardless. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You said that the only critical commentary is "speculation by the press from trailers and gameplay videos", which would be true for most games, but Invisible, Inc. hosted a preview of the game at PAX Prime 2013, and they are making alphas and betas of the game available through Steam Early Access. That means that anyone can buy the game right now and play it, and that any press that wants to can base their commentary on the game, not just videos. --Odie5533 (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right, I didn't see it on Steam Early Access and assumed it's not yet available. But Klei is selling pre-orders on their own site. I have rephrased my argument. I also looked at references again and none of them use the early access version for an in-depth review, most commentary is along the lines of "It’s exceedingly barebones for now, but the skeleton of something great is beginning to take shape." That users can access it does not mean press has "reviewed" it, as much as "review" can apply to an unfinished game in alpha. I would not call this passing WP:GNG with "significant coverage", but then I am confident it will be released, properly reviewed and notable, hence I'm not at all arguing for deletion. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Game journalists are hesistent to review games at the alpha stage for various good reasons, so we're not going to have a proper review until after the game is truly released. However, notability does not require reviews, just significant coverage, which includes pre-release details and commentary on the game as from PAX, etc. The fact this type of coverage exists is a good sign that the press will cover the game with proper reviews on release. --MASEM (t) 02:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hence I didn't say "delete". I just don't consider sources not more than 5 paragraphs each "significant coverage", a criteria which has to apply to each source. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of reliable source coverage available. There's much more available here than just an announcement, and WP:CRYSTAL violations are more about things that fail WP:HAMMER - again, much more than that is known, so this article doesn't apply. Sergecross73 msg me 03:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As it clearly meets notability requirements for video games -- although the article should probably note the games name change, as noted in some of the sources. Paviliolive (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2014 (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.