Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steam Early Access

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 Early access. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steam Early Access[edit]

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

Unjustified copy of essentially what is already covered in the main Steam (software) and/or Early access article. So delete and redirect to main article. Does not meet Wikipedia:Article size and WP:NOTNEWS.--Vaypertrail (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC) Vaypertrail (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep What part of WP:TOOLONG has any application here? The Steam Early Access program has received more than routine news reporting, so WP:NOTNEWS #2 does not apply. Here's some more reliable sources on the subject: Kotaku, MakeUseOf, VentureBeat, ArsTechnica, GamerNode, GameFront, MCVUK, IGN, CinemaBlend, GameSpot, PC Magazine, EscapistMagazine, Develop-Online, GamePolitics, GameTrailers, GameInformer, ShackNews, PCGamesN, Edge. Gamasutra wrote an article "The 5 trends that defined the game industry in 2013" saying, "a big factor for alpha funding in 2013 was Valve's introduction of Steam Early Access." --Odie5533 (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is not enough content to write about that won't already fit in the other two pages. Everything you've linked to is already in this stub, minus the opinions. And the big factor is early access, not Valve's early access...--Vaypertrail (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Gamaustra writer believes it is particularly Valve's introduction of Steam Early Access. Many of the other article writers also believe this program is having a major impact on the industry. Other information that can be added to the article would be a History section providing background information on other Early Access programs and Steam Greenlight, a Platform section that discusses how the games are distributed, a Reception section dealing with critical analysis of the program, an Impact section dealing with the impact on the industry, and maybe a Library section discussing some of the more notable games that have been introduced through the Steam Early Access initiative. The article is short, but I only just started it a few days ago so it can hardly be expected to be FA quality so soon. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greenlight is not the same as Early Access; it's very much orthogonal, so there's no point in discussing Greenlight in depth there. And everything else you have there is exactly what I've got set up at Early access, barring the importance of Steam's program and that's simply because it hasn't been added yet to this other one. Yes, right now, Steam's version is the largest, but that doesn't mean we should favorite it over any other comparable program (particularly Minecraft's approach which didn't even touch Steam). --MASEM (t) 23:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe both are notable, and I don't consider having an article for Steam's platform favoring it anymore than it deserves. Also, there is a point discussing Greenlight because the articles I've read about Steam Early Access discuss its relation to Greenlight. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But they are still orthogonal processes; related but not connected in any other fashion beyond being a way for indie devs to take advantage of Steam features. A sentence or two to discuss Greenlight's nature is fine, but a whole discourse on it in an Early Access article would be wrong. And while I'm not saying that Steam Early Access itself isn't notable, it is more the case that of anything about Early Access right now, most of it is centered on Steam's version (take away the Minecraft effect, and 90%+ of what's left is Steam-based Early Access). To that end, the broader topic of Early Access makes sense for the only article to cover it, even if a good deal of it will be about Steam's version. That is, we only need one article to cover all of what all Early Access programs will be, and we should be doing that at the broader topic of non-branded Early access. --MASEM (t) 16:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see this as similar to having an article for Kickstarter, while also having an article for crowdfunding. (from below) I don't consider the topic "brief" as there are dozens and dozens of articles discussing both Early access in general and Steam Early Access in particular. As you note, Steam Early Access is the largest early access platform. I expanded the article a bit, though it could still use a lot more expansion, particularly a discussion of Rust, DayZ, and Starbound, three largely successful titles. I'd ask you to look at the page again and possibly reconsider your position. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see it equal. For one, Kickstart is also a company, so there's aspects besides the crowdfunding nature to consider. Second, there are a lot more crowdfunding services/businesses than just Kickstarter, so separate articles for the two make sense. Here, Steam Early Access is one of very few, and perhaps the most important, version of early access. As such, at the present time, it is very difficult to talk about early access without going into detail on STeam's early access since it is the proven replicable model out there for it. Hence the two topics are presently so tied together as discussing them separately makes no sense. --MASEM (t) 18:18, 1 April 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) 02:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Early Access. I created that article with the intent that any further detail of Steam's Early Access program could be covered in there along with the importance of other equivalent programs. There's no reason that Steam's specific version needs a separate callout. --MASEM (t) 02:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that I'm not saying that Steam's version isn't notable, but I don't think talking about it separately from the other equivalent programs makes sense. --MASEM (t) 03:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And to note, this is very much a search term, so the redirect should be left behind. --MASEM (t) 03:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The redirect would have to be left behind anyways, to preserve the edit attribution. ansh666 03:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any amount of reporting and critical analysis which would ever tip the scales to have an article for Steam Early Access, or are you completely set on it never having an article? It seems like no matter how much support I could find to keep the article, you'd still want it deleted. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At some point in the future there might be enough sources - right now, no; having two separate articles is an unnecessary breakdown of a rather brief topic. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many sources about Steam Early Access would there need to be? 25? 50? More? --Odie5533 (talk) 09:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Early access and Steam (software), and redirect to the former. I scanned both articles, and the Steam article doesn't seem to make any mention of this at all. ansh666 03:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW Steam's version is mentioned under "Developer Features" at the Steam article. --MASEM (t) 23:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any reasons for voting merge? --Odie5533 (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Masem. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the main article on the game where this would add to that article. As it stands, this article itself says "Early access rose as a funding model with the release of Minecraft...", so there is nothing particularly notable about the use of "early access" here - it's not the first case, and appears to have simply been chosen as a funding option. I also notice that despite the first use of "early access" funding being for Minecraft, we don't have an article on "Minecraft Early Access". This article is just about the funding option used, and it's not even a notable use of that funding option. RomanSpa (talk) 07:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the first case, but it's the biggest and most important one in existence, the one everyone always talks about, and the one Gamasutra specifically commended for pushing alpha funding to the next level. --Odie5533 (talk) 09:03, 6 April 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.