Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sword of Moonlight: King's Field Making Tool

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 delete. The standard for inclusion is sourcing and very few of the keep votes even address this so they have very little weight in the close. The delete side show they have considered the sources and that they are not good enough and that hasn't been refuted so the consensus is delete Spartaz Humbug! 08:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sword of Moonlight: King's Field Making Tool[edit]

Sword of Moonlight: King's Field Making Tool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails to indicate why the subject is notable, and I suspect the game fails WP:GNG. The article also fails to cite any outside sources. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Inks.LWC (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - For the record, I don't think there is any debate here. Seems like a formality. Not sure how things work myself, but my intent in this post is to preclude any possibility for actual deletion. Thank you Wikipedia for being so awesome --Truth Glass (talk) 03:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)— Truth Glass (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage about this RPG making software to establish notability. There's forum chatter about it but those aren't reliable sources. RPG Gamer and Gamespot noted that the game was going to be released. But that's not substantial coverage. What is needed are multiple reviews in reliable sources, and I was unable to find any. -- Whpq (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah Right - It's a Japanese product. Here is the Gamefaqs break down [1]. It seems to confirm that the product was released. I'd appreciate if Wikipedians who do not regularly import video games etc not weigh in on the matter. If you seriously want to find coverage, websearch it with relevant Japanese language terms. Not withstanding Japanese coverage of stuff online tends to be more volatile and Japanese websites were pretty sparse around the turn of the century. That said there's plenty of user discussion in English to be found. A lot more than most video game products enjoy because we're not talking about a passive user experience here.
@any other detractors, please see the arguments in the article discussion page before posting. --12.213.80.54 (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The discussion at the article talk page provides no indication that this article meets our inclusion guidelines, nor does the existence of an entry for it at GameFAQs establish notability either. If you have evidence of notability in the form of coverage in reliable sources, please bring them forward. -- Whpq (talk) 09:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion is a waste of time - I realize things are supposed to be notable. But by association, if a musical artist is world famous, and they release a somewhat experimental song or album, or maybe do something outside their normal capacity as an artist, like design a synthesizer. Even if that work does not make headlines, and its just a footnote to most of the world population who don't care about the artist's entire body of work, it's still notable within the context of that notable person, because people want to know a totality of information, albeit not in complete detail when in Encyclopedia form.

In this case we have a very famous corporation, one of the top few most popular game studios in Japan, having released (more than a decade ago) a very unique product that lets people make their versions of a game which a number of people will assert is the best video game ever to be created so far in human history. Sure it's in Japanese, but that's a minor stepping block in this day and age. Sure it's more than a decade old, so finding brick and mortar sources is going to be next to impossible. But anyway here is the best and last argument I can find[2] image[3], what we have is a collection of From Software products on an official website. The product in question is the biggest box in the photograph. It's hard to deny the product exists and is not notable to people seeking information. Consider a person who just enjoyed King's Field, and comes to Wikipedia to find information. A single mini paragraph on the main KF page saying there is software for making your own KF games and nothing more is just going to lead to frustration. Who would not want to read more about that without having to go outside of Wikipedia for basic information? There are hundreds of classic PlayStation games on the Japanese PlayStation Network, all of them are better than the current gen PlayStation games for the most part, but 99% are less notable than Sword of Moonlight. What's on display here is a policy of ignorance when taken to the extreme. Good day gentlemen --67.54.192.52 (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete First, your initial argument is incorrect, because notability is not inherited on Wikipedia articles. Read that before you say that we are ignoring policy. You can dismiss the process all you want, but in the end, all articles on Wikipedia need to first, be verifiable. Second, games need to be notable. Providing images and release information of the game may prove the game exists, but it's not usage to inform us that it is notable. To provide evidence of notability, you should check here. Notable games require reviews or some kind of reception, or perhaps evidence from reliable, third-party sources that it has made an impact in the gaming industry. I, Jethrobot drop me a line 05:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability says - It seems to me like you're reading Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED#Notability_is_inherited backwards. It says, "(three of the notability guidelines, for books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances)", which are all media, as is a video game. From books:
The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes.[6]
This logic seems to apply in this case. I'm pretty impartial here, and I am not interested in struggling with anything or quibbling over technicalities. This software will be unequivocally notable at some point and it will look bad for Wikipedia's gatekeepers when that happens if some basically antisocial people were successful in keeping its measly article out of Wikipedia, which on the whole is a project I respect more than almost everything on the internet. There are definitely a lot more people interested in this article than in the many notable but entirely irrelevant to most of the population articles. If you want to justify things in terms of storage or maintenance or whatever. There's definitely not an argument for "too much information" here.
PS: Not saying you're "ignoring policy", just that you must be abusing it or misunderstanding it, because you're conclusion is clearly ludicrous. --Truth Glass (talk) 09:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC) • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
This software will be unequivocally notable at some point and it will look bad for Wikipedia's gatekeepers when that happens if some basically antisocial people were successful in keeping its measly article out of Wikipedia -- This was unnecessary and there is never a reason to start calling people names in these disucssions. Your reasoning is a stretch and I disagree with it. We are talking about a business, a company. Not an author. Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball telling us whether a particular game will be "unequivocally notable" at some point, we don't keep articles because other crap exists and we don't keep articles because they are subjectively important. We can't go guessing whether something will be popular just because it came from a company that has been successful at creating games, it doesn't matter what other "irrelevant stuff" is on Wikipedia because it's not relevant to the current discussion, and it's insufficient for notability if you think it's more important than other things. I, Jethrobot drop me a line 18:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point was to convince people to try to do something more productive with their life than start an unhealthy negative argument here for no one's sake. It's already notable enough in and of itself. Just saying, this is a pointless battle even if you succeed, and your motivations here are dubious at best. By your standards very many video game pages would need to be culled. Is that what you spend your time doing when you're not trying to get in the way of new ones? Policy guidelines are very informative but they don't trump good sense. This is wiki perversion--72.173.160.58 (talk) 03:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I tried to make a good faith effort to look for third-party, independent sources to find evidence of notability. I'm not some maniac trying to destroy this page, honest. I can even read Japanese, so I did a search on Japanese websites (which makes sense since that's where its popularity would be) This is what I came up with:
I tried looking at Famitsu and Japanese websites that look at PC games and turned up with zilch. I hope this demonstrates that I've made a good faith effort to look for sources, and I've only found one, and it isn't exactly ideal. One usable source and the fact that the company might be notable for other games isn't enough to change my arguments. I, Jethrobot drop me a line 07:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Subjective objectivity?? - The lack of edit sections is leading me to grow tired of participation. I think you're fetishizing the unofficial Wikipedia guidelines pages here. The subject is by all conceivable axioms objectively important in terms of its informational relevance. What you're seeking is subjective evidence for objective importance. You're spending a lot of effort doing so as well. I'm sure there were some Japanese publications that included an article and advertisement or two back in 2000. If you want to fly to Japan and hunt those down, feel free to expend more energy. The fact that someone was willing to create the page and you can't find a positive argument for deletion, proves its importance. You can't actually go out and measure the importance of things per person or Wikipedia user, therefore you must assume importance in these cases, unless you want to argue that somehow there is limited real-estate for articles on Wikipedia. I don't think that's the criteria. I think you just want a magazine article or something, which would suffice for most games I think. I don't see a need for a double standard. --72.173.160.58 (talk) 04:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look, you didn't even make an effort to look for sources to back up any of your claims, so until you do, you don't have any leeway to be talking about a double-standard for your article. You are assuming bad faith and are using very different criteria for "notability" than what Wikipedia guidelines call for. I try to help and you throw it back in my face. You're not going to be a very effective editor by making these kinds of responses. I, Jethrobot drop me a line 13:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not assuming bad faith. Your quest just seems really weird (from any down to earth pov) so I'm trying to help you see that since you're the only qualified person (as far as I am concerned) standing in the way of this article at this point :)
PS: Not trying to be an effective editor. Just trying to get some shit done. Editors can edit their hearts out, which is awesome as long as things are constructive and not ideologically motivated --12.213.80.36 (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
some release dates from a PCGaming website, but no reviews or otherwise substantial - This link from above^ goes to a 2009 webpage. It mentions two PSP games, KING'S FIELD ADDITIONAL I & II, which is really not relevant to the discussion here. I don't think most people in the US even realized Sword of Moonlight (the software in question) existed for a number of years after its release. So it's not as if people were collecting webpage articles about it in anticipation of needing to create a Wikipedia page one day. I was graduating highschool that year so I had other things on my mind. FYI: KING'S FIELD II has always been my top game of all time (and I am not alone here) but I became more interested in Sword of Moonlight because I think it represents a revolutionary new way to make games, and reboot gaming in general... with a little open source wizardry it may totally shake up the world gaming scene. Not that that's relevant here. Still it's an almost totally anti establishment phenomenon, so no surprise, no establishment sources. Later there will be debates about whether or not Sword of Moonlight games qualify as real games... --99.197.224.57 (talk) 12:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again Keep - Please explain to me why any video game or software sold in mainstream retail outlets, never mind those which garner considerable fandom, are not notable enough to deserve a page on Wikipedia? I mean if you demand establishment recognition of something, I can't think of anything more establishment than that. Point being is information is information. If people want to fill it out let them. That should be basic policy. Even if a game was so bad nobody played with it, people should be able to figure that out as well without having to find out first hand. In this case the product is central to the identity of the company that produced it. It's like if Nintendo made software for making Mario games. And the business model could never have worked out, so it's also a unique humanitarian gesture. Virtually unprecedented... maybe even so, in video game history --Truth Glass (talk) 09:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC) • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
  • Redirect to From Software. Article does not meet our general notability guideline of significant coverage from reliable sources, or provide secondary source for verification. Redirect per WP:PRODUCT and cover there any basic information provided by the primary sources. Marasmusine (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If this article is in violation of WP:Product it would mean any publisher with individual pages for their video games would also be in violation. Looking at the links I see that From Software is a major publisher of video games. If their other products have individual entries, such as the Armored Core (including individual entries for each installment), than what is the difference here? Under WP:Product we read "If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy." From Software is a very well known publisher in the industry with critically acclaimed games. Reading the article, it's poorly written with improper grammar and uses none neutral phrases WP:NPV. My major fault to the article is it's use of resources from the company's Japanese webpage. The English wikipedia pages really need English sources so that information may be verified. Also, there is no REFLIST for the reference on the page. Other than terrible construction I cannot see a reason for deletion. MichaelJPierce (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The argument that applying PRODUCT to this article means redirecting all video game articles is utter nonsense, since many game articles do provide citations to signifcant coverage and are therefore independently notable. I also don't understand the remainder of your paragraph. Are you arguing that we shouldn't redirect to From Software because the From Software article is poorly written? Also, language should not be a barrier to our verification (WP:BIAS). Marasmusine (talk) 09:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article was created only a few days ago. No one is going to invest time cleaning it up (as best they individually can) until the self appointed Mad Max hooligans are put to bay. Why write up a big article and cross reference it when people will argue it's irrelevancy / call for deletion? That said I appreciate the defense here and hope it helps silence detractors -- who probably have better things to be doing. As for referencing English pages, From Software does not have an English counterpart. Their software is localized by many different publishers which I'm not really familiar with because they are all either minor entities or mega conglomerates. Sword of Moonlight could never have been a financial success in Japan, so it's no surprise it was not brought over to the states. There was no way for it to make money for From Software. Still it seems like a very special project. And of course there are no shortage of English websites created by enthusiasts on behalf of Sword of Moonlight because it's a game making suite geared towards non video game sector professionals (the gaming public in general)--67.54.192.52 (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reminder: This article was created on the same day as the article in question. We are discussing a brand new page which people are not going to invest in until it's allowed to exist. It's not an old page that was come upon and queued up for deletion--72.173.160.58 (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Famitsu - I noticed this[4] article cited above is sourced to Famitsu in Japan, which is the #1 video game periodical as far as I know. I don't know if that's enough to qualify for "official" notability or what. Seems like a dubious criteria to me, but whatever floats your collective boats. --67.54.192.52 (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EDITED: The RPG Gamer website article is not bad, and half the page is given to the topic here, though it's misleading at places. Unfortunately it's not dated like so many publications, though I guess it must be from around the same time as those games were being release. I assume the Famitsu source is to a magazine rather than a web article, but even if there was the Famitsu article online somewhere or the magazine number could be discovered, I don't see how that would be worked into the Wikipedia article if that is a must for some reason. I mean we are talking about something if people don't believe the veracity of the claims, they can just go out and find a copy of the software and see for themselves --67.54.192.38 (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cleaned up existing sections to the best of my ability for now - And added candy everywhere, and requested the materialization of a boxart image. --12.213.80.36 (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being a good and popular piece of software is not enough to warrant an article. Per WP:V#Notability, we need substantial coverage in reliable published third party sources, and such coverage is not in evidence judging by the article and this discussion.  Sandstein  06:00, 9 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sword_of_Moonlight:_King%27s_Field_Making_Tool&oldid=1079979502"