Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural Disaster Survival

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 merge‎ to List of Roblox games#Natural Disaster Survival. Merge any usable sourced content. Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Disaster Survival[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Natural Disaster Survival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG with insufficient sourcing, just general coverage of Roblox that happens to mention the game, but no specific coverage on the game individually. Might as well be a failure at WP:NOTDB as well. Propose re-establishing the redirect back to List of Roblox games. EggRoll97 (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect? do not redirect the page because I am working on the page and do not restore the redirect while I am working on the article and I get a message that the page was redirected; I will see how I give the article notability by WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Julián Martínez (talk • contribs) 21:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I cannot find sources showing notability. You can write really well, but that won't save it. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per others. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Maybe consider Wikibooks instead. Encyclopedia article space is for pages that pass the WP:GNG guidelines. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I found this mention from PCGamesN but that's it. Sadly, despite being a part of my childhood, this isn't notable. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Same here. A huge chunk of my childhood. Oh well, I support a redirect. Blitzfan51 the manager 17:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • :Redirect. This is the kind of stuff that belongs on the Roblox Wiki. Here on Wikipedia, a redirect is all we need and want, until several independent news sources decide "hmm, let's write a 10-page editorial on this game.". I created the page with the intent that it would stay a redirect for a long time. A diehard editor (talk | edits) 18:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but I am working on the article and I will also add additional references to it as possible so that it complies with WP:GNG ~ Alex | Leave me a message on my talk page! 20:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alex Julián Martínez If you have found sources, now is the time to post them. Multiple people's search's has failed to find Significant coverage in multiple Reliable sources as is required. You don't need to add them to the article right now, just post them here so others can see if this article passes WP:GNG. That you believe that sources exist without showing that they do, or that you think that it will be fine with a little more work aren't arguments to prevent it's deletion/redirection. Only linking these additional references (to prove notability) will prevent it's removal. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alex Julián Martínez In addition, you can also create a WP:Draft to work on articles that you are having trouble finding sources for but which you believe one day will meet Wikipedia's WP:PAGs. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cakelot1 i checked the references: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and [6]; the article have 4 references now ~ Alex | Leave me a message on my talk page! 21:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cakelot1 What I do want to add in the article is the direct link to the Roblox game but it appears that it is on the roblox.com blacklist and it won't let me and in the first place I don't know why it was banned because I also need to add the link to the Roblox game so that the article has the notoriety that the game exists. ~ Alex | Leave me a message on my talk page! 21:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alex Julián Martínez, the key word being the "Reliable" in Reliable Source. This means we don't use self published books or videos, like your 1st and 4th link (see WP:RSSELF), or wikis/forums, 5th and 6th (see WP:RSPWIKIA and WP:RSREDDIT). A quiz and a self published presentaion (from the article) are not a reliable sources either. As to Roblox links they would be WP:PRIMARY and so couldn't be used to establish notability.
    What we need is in depth coverage in news sources/academic papers etc. (see WP:RSP or WP:VG/S for the sort of sources we are talking about). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 21:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok ~ Alex | Leave me a message on my talk page! 21:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Speaking of academic papers, I did come across some that covered the mod fairly significantly. For example, this source dedicates a 186 word paragraph to the mod (on page 24). There was also another article from Google Scholar which was cited 15 times, and has some interspersed commentary about the mod as well.
    I also found this and this from Google Books. Both books seem to dedicate a section towards the mod which ostensibly looks like it's significant coverage. However, I'm unsure of the reliability/independence of the publisher and because both books are in Russian, I can't properly verify the info the book says about it. Has any Roblox editor ever read these books and used them as a source on Roblox related articles?
    Also, I assume you were hyperbolic, but I don't think a "10-page editorial" is required for a source to meet WP:SIGCOV. While it decidedly does prove notability, I'd argue even a 200 to 500 word article or so should suffice. What matters is if there's enough to write more than a stub on a given topic. PantheonRadiance (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that first source would properly be WP:SIGCOV, but that second one seems pretty passing. To me the two books appear to be game guides sanctioned by the Roblox corporation (per the copyright section), so I don't think it would count as Independent. I think the first source would be good to expand the section in the list article.
    I will note for Alex Julián Martínez that if this article is kept it would have to be edited to be based primarily on these reliable sources (per WP:V). Lists every of object/event in a game don't belong on wikipedia and the images currently in the article don't conform to WP:NFCC. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 10:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That would mean 2 sources. The Google Scholar source, and a reliable source I added. Not enough though, we need one more to establish notability. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While I support restoring it back to redirect state, I will be fine with the author moving the article to draftspace (and significantly cutting down on the non-free image use) while efforts on the author's part or anyone continue to find the third source. A diehard editor (talk | edits) 23:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cakelot1, QuicoleJR, and A diehard editor: After doing another round of searches, I was able to find three extra sources. The first one is another scholarly source that analyzes the mod in the context of natural disasters. It also seems to go over how the game is used as a teaching tool to help students learn about geography and the environment. The original version's in Portuguese so I had to download the paper from Google Scholar and translate it from there. Unfortunately I can't send the translation link so you're going to have to download and translate from this: [7]
Also, I found two listicles from Android Central and Windows Central that contained a 100 word description of the game. Considering that they're both from the same author, both sites are owned by the same publisher and they say virtually the exact same thing, I'd count this as one fairly strong source. There were also Eurogamer listicles from the Brazil version of the website that also mentioned the game, but they aren't substantial.
Finally, I found a Chinese magazine which seems to talk about the game, but I can't find a way to translate it. Out of a good faith assumption, I guess it's fairly WP:SIGCOV?
So in total we have six sources that seem reliable, and give moderate to decent coverage to the game. Would this be enough to justify a Weak Keep? PantheonRadiance (talk) 02:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would say so. The article would still need a major rewrite, but WP:TNT isn't policy. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Chinese source talks about how players load into a map "such as a prison, amusement park, skyscraper, or construction site", followed by a natural disaster, such as an "earthquake, volcanic eruption, flood, tsunami, [or] meteor shower", and goes into how players must survive the natural disaster in question. Surface-level gameplay overview. Regardless, the sources provided are far too weak to suggest that this article should be split to begin with. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: After having a first go at rewriting some of the article based on the above sources, I'm even more convinced that this should be redirected. (Findlay 2017) which was treaty as the most substantial source above turns out to be a masters thesis, with most of it's space on the game taken up with listing each of the events in it. Not in my view substantial and not reliable. (Long 2019) seems to be a Bachelor's dissertation and is even less substantial. Everything else still seems to be listicles. I haven't as of yet been able to read the foreign language magazines but based on all the other magazine type articles we do have accesses to I'm not hopeful that they will give any further information. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 21:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After reading your response, I do agree with you on some aspects, but not enough to sway me towards a redirect yet. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, I counted the Findlay source as reliable on two accounts - as a research paper and a dissertation. The article had been cited by two other peer-reviewed journals according to Google Scholar, in line with the scholarship guidelines: "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses…. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties." So as a dissertation that has been cited in some scholarly journals, I'd argue that it decently works as a reliable source.
The second source by Long was also cited 15 times in several peer-reviewed journals according to Google Scholar. However, I decided to dismiss the source because, as you stated earlier, it is fairly sparse coverage, and the fact that it was listed as a preprint, meaning according to the scholarship guideline it isn't exactly a reliable source, whether cited by reliable journals or not.
Finally, the Portuguese paper I linked above is an excerpt from "Terræ didatica", a peer-reviewed scholarly journal listed on the Directory of Open Access Journals. I haven't been able to find evidence that the journal is predatory or had any poor peer-review practices, so I would argue that it qualifies as a reliable scholarly source. As for SIGCOV, I verified that the mod is covered significantly through my translation of the source. Pages 3 and 8-11 offer the most commentary about the game, namely a brief premise and its gameplay, how it accurately depicts weather phenomena, and how the game revealed teamwork and collaboration amongst students along with language barriers. In that regard, it works as solid secondary commentary and analysis of the game as a teaching tool for students to learn about natural phenomena. Also, I'd argue that the PCGamesN and Android/Windows Central listicles may not be enough to provide significant coverage on their own, but would be decent enough for the reception and analysis section of the game. After I posted the sources, I thought of combining both the analysis of the game and reception of the game together, but it seems you already somewhat did that earlier today. Thanks for that.
However, if anyone else finds sufficient evidence that the "Terræ didatica" journal and any of the other journals which cited the sources I found aren't reliable at all, I'd be more than open to a redirect. PantheonRadiance (talk) 03:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will repeat that I think (Findlay 2017) is very close to being passing coverage. Of the aprox 180 words, ~50 are dedicated to other Roblox mods, ~20 to what a mod is, and ~50 on a non-exhaustive list of the games disasters. This leaves basically a single sentence giving any actual useful commentary on the subject. I just didn't find it a very substantial source to hang and article on.
I agree that (Siqueira 2019) is substantial but again I don't think one substantial source and a pretty passing mention of criticisms is enough in my view to write a well rounded article. I really apricate your research, but from my point of view, everything of note that that can currently be said and sourced about this topic could fit in 2 to 3 paragraphs, and could be easily accommodated in Natural Disaster Survival section of the main list. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Roblox games#Natural Disaster Survival, the sources available for this game are clearly not reliable. Master's and bachelor's theses are explicitly considered unreliable according to sourcing guidelines, and the other sources, English or non-English, seem to exclusively be crufty listicles that would not pass VG/RS. Entertainment Focus is probably the closest to reliable, and even then I would definitely hesitate to use it to claim notability. However, there is some reliably sourced information such as from the passing mention in the PCGamesN article that is not in the main list, which should be merged there. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Master's dissertations "are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence" per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I wrote above explaining why I thought the sources would fall under usable scholarly articles. PantheonRadiance (talk) 04:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge — I have done the due diligence of looking into this game. The original content from this page is copied from the Roblox Wiki entry and cannot be used. Having read through this discussion, it appears as though editors are scraping through the Internet to attempt to find sources, rather than having them come naturally, suggesting that the subject here is not notable. One of the two research papers in here is a preprint and does not suggest notability. The comparable Adopt Me! has a variety of reliable sources that support the accompanying article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    well if they do exist after we scraped through the internet to find them does it matter as long as we found them? Doesn't that still prove notability? Blitzfan51 speak to the manager 19:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that what little sources have been found so far have been found through extreme measures (e.g. Google Books). What would establish notability is several reliable sources, ideally those on the perennial list, that demonstrate this article is more than a few sentences and a half. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't consider looking for printed sources particularly "extreme". However, I am also unconvinced SIGCOV actually exists. Trying to look for scattered mentions to cobble together is like building the foundation of a house after you sell it. At best it would need to be totally rewritten and submitted in AfC. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:PRESERVE. Most of the sources are unreliable. There are some WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs that verify this game's existence and that can be covered as part of the main Roblox article. I don't see any hope of an expansion into a meaningful and reliable article. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article was translated to Italian Wikipedia and moved to draft because it didn't publish well, so the other details of the article didn't have to be removed earlier. ~ Alex | Leave me a message on my talk page! — Preceding undated comment added 20:50, 25 May 2023 (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/Natural_Disaster_Survival&oldid=1157199798"