Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The War Z

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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The War Z[edit]

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

Non-Notable and is a PR piece; including pricing and download links. GenQuest (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, almost a speedy keep. I can see that the article was in pretty bad shape when the AfD was created, but I suspect the nominator didn't follow WP:BEFORE, as the article now has almost a dozen solid sources thanks to Tokyogirl79's excellent work. Promotional problems can be (and were) handled through normal editing. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Echoing the above sentiment, Tokyogirl79's alterations to the article effectively resolve the criticisms regarding the notability of the subject, and promotional quality of the original content, signifying that deletion is unreasonable. Mephistophelian (contact) 14:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, I am the nominator, and I certainly did process WP:BEFORE before making the nomination. As I explained on the talk page, this is not the kind of article I would normally edit. In the thirty pages of my Google search, I found less than 7 mentions of the article's subject other than first-party webpages —hardly notable. The blatant sales pamphlet clone about a game that isn't even released yet that was initially on Wikipedia should not have been there for 5 minutes, let alone several days. The references added since my nomination are a good start, however, I have to ask (since, again, I am not a gamer and don't research these type of articles regularly), how many of the websites referenced are reliable (containing over-site, editorial review, etc.) — not just author opinions or fan sites? Or does that even matter in game articles? I leave it up to other editors out there who care about such articles to decide. I'm out... GenQuest (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can answer your question about sources. The Escapist, Joystiq, PC Gamer, and IGN are all great in terms of editorial oversight and quality control. Not certain on all the rest, but I'm pretty sure Destructoid is good. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not a gamer then you should apply your beauracratic skills elsewhere. The number of results in a Google Search for a game that has just released would have obviously been low since the bot probably hadn't indexed the results. It is people like you that really piss me off. You people are unconstructive bureaucrats who think that pedantically following every rule in the book will make this place better, and are meddling in a field you have no knowledge of. I motion for a keep and further motion that this bureaucrat tender his resignation with immediate effect or at the very least, refrain from trying to "improve" gaming-related articles. User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from ad hominem arguments during the discussion. Thanks, Mephistophelian (contact) 00:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I will forgive your personal attack as the result of simple ignorance as to what the purpose of an encyclopedia is. It is certainly NOT to create notability, nor to sell video games. It's about building a better Wikipedia. Your rant and apparent "philosophy" does neither. Do us all a favor and look up the words "respect" and "consensus" in the dictionary, ~Regards GenQuest (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I specifically cautioned DiscipleOfKnowledge regarding the character of his argument, the warning applies equally to anyone disparaging another editor as ignorant, and thereby disrupting this discussion. Mephistophelian (contact) 00:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

"Non-Notable and is a PR piece; including pricing and download links."

The article does not contain nay direct links to downlaod the game, only to the website itself, which is perfectly in reason It most certainly Notable as it has been on several high caliber websites Additionally there there is no mention of pricing on the page what so ever, other than one payment is necessary and no monthly fee's apply, which perfectly whithin reason as this may not otherwise be clear as it is a MMORPG and these often differ in their payment systems, so as such it would be of interest to the reader.

All of this leads me to wonder whether you read the article as all, but rather just have a personal dislike for the game itself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deltorant (talk • contribs)

I moved this from the talk page of this AfD. That being said, nominating something for AfD does not mean that someone has anything against the game. Just that they noticed it didn't meet GNG as it was written and nominated it. Also, before I edited the article extensively, there was a price point mentioned and much of the article was taken from various press releases. As far as download links go, the nominator is probably referring to the website link at the bottom. In any case, best way to argue for an article being kept is to remain calm, source the article accordingly, and argue based on points from WP:GNG. Alluding to anyone having a personal slight against someone or something really isn't the way to go about this. We should always assume good faith when it comes to things of this nature unless someone does something so above and beyond the reasonable rationale of good faith that it's obvious. I believe that GenQuest was operating in good faith. A little hasty, but in good faith. Making swipes isn't any way to conduct ourselves.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've found multiple sources that talk about the game and some reviews of the beta runs of the game, so the game looks to be notable enough to keep. Now all that aside, arguing isn't going to get us anywhere. The original article format was awful and given the amount of gaming websites out there that are known for posting user reviews that don't count towards notability, it's easy to see how it'd be confusing to sort through things if you're not as familiar with the gaming sites. In any given AfD topic, there are a lot of sites that come up under GNews or other search engines that aren't usable as RS, so it's not always as easy as googling. I don't really see where this nomination was really all that bad, honestly. It resulted in the article getting some much needed love and proper sourcing, so this AfD had some merit because it brought it to the attention of various users that could edit. Maybe GenQuest could've asked around, but that's sort of a moot point and other than politely pointing out other options before nominating for deletion, we really have nothing to talk about other than potential ways to improve the article. But like I said, this AfD has ultimately been beneficial for the article and as such, accomplished something positive, so there's no reason for berating anyone.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I read the above. Notability is just not established. Vast majority of the sources are not classified as reliable by WP:VG/RS (on a "game news" website ≠ corroboration). I'll say this again: ~~IGN,~~ Joystiq, Destructoid, the sources are not solid. Likewise Google hits ≠ notability (especially when they overlap with the better-known World War Z). Notability is independent, reliable sourcing. VG encyclopedia articles are for games that contribute to critical discourse about VG—Wikipedia is not a directory. This AfD is about whether or not an idea is notable for an encyclopedia article. Ask yourself what it does to show its notability. I pass no personal judgment on this game and its moment quite possibly might come in the future, but right now it is not notable. czar · · 22:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should take a look at this list, which shows that most of the sources used in the article are fine, while others are okay in some situations. Whether or not the game is released is not a criterion for notability. Many many games get coverage before they are released, just as films and other forms of media entertainment get coverage prior to being available for direct consumption. The standard for notability is whether it receives significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, which it does. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Sorry Czar, but you are straightforwardly mistaken in your interpretation of what the WikiProject considers to constitute a reliable source, hence whether the article satisfies the general notability criteria. Whereas you cite WP:VG/RL, the project's reference library, its actual guidelines on the reliability of online and printed media is WP:VG/RS, which explicitly includes IGN and GameSpy, both of which are News Corporation companies that incorporate the same database. Mephistophelian (contact) 23:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I'm aware and meant RS, not RL. It was a slip on my part—thanks, fixed. A few (PC World, PC Gamer, IGN) are listed as valid (though the last with a caveat), but Joystiq (x3), Destructoid, and several others are not. I'm not looking to split hairs. The point is that we're really stretching for sources to prove this game a notable entity worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If you are already convinced otherwise, there's nothing more to say here. czar · · 23:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Joystiq and Destructoid are also listed as potentially valid (though with caveats). The sources currently listed in the article demonstrate notability. The GNG makes no distinction between very notable and only moderately notable. -Thibbs (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Enough coverage in reliable sources. I think there's enough there with the non-debatable reliable sources, let alone the ones that are somewhat borderline. (From my experience at AFD, Joystiq is usually one of those sources that are considered "useable if that's all there is, but something to avoid or replace if/when other sources are available. Sergecross73 msg me 00:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There seems to be several various sources which support information in the article, the article is also in regards to a video game which hasn't been released, however, it is entering the alpha testing phase. I'm sure at the end of the alpha testing phase there will be more articles with more information regarding the topic. The article has been up for ten days. Five of those days have had the deletion discussion occurring. As for sources, the game publisher would be one source, IGN and PCGamer are independant, reliable sources; and The Escapist, Joystiq, and Destructoid, while not preferred source material, are able to be used. User:Aneah 20:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tokyogirl79's sourcing. Torchiest's suggestion regarding WP:BEFORE is a sound one. -Thibbs (talk) 14:08, 23 October 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.