Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wild Terra Online

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. czar 08:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Terra Online[edit]

Wild Terra Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find video game sources: "Wild Terra Online" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Non-notable game, fails WP:GNG. I could only find 2 reliably sourced articles in Siliconera and Igromania, respectively. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify, needs work. There are some coverage.[1][2][3][4]. — TheMagnificentist 13:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, those are not significant, and not enough to base an article on. I am not even sure that most of those are reliable sources.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A source isn't unreliable until proven. — TheMagnificentist 20:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Even assuming those are all totally 100% the most reliable on the planet, they are mainly 1 paragraph descriptions, so they aren't significant. The first one is merely a by the numbers patch note/press release with no further input on the part of the writer. The second, third and fourth, more press release type articles with no original thought.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessarily. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." These sources address the topic directly and in detail, and they're not trivial mentions. One paragraph is considered significant enough. — TheMagnificentist 20:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    According to WP:PROMO such blatantly promotional things as press releases sent out by the game devs do not make something notable even if it is on a secondary source. Said source has to actually state why the game is notable.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Zxcvcvbnm is correct that in their assertion that press releases, by definition, are not third party coverage, but rather, first party coverage, because they're written by the company themselves. Even if third party sources repost them, they're still entirely the work of a first party. It doesn't make the sources unusable, but it doesn't help in proving notability. These sources listed, not only do I doubt their reliability, but beyond that, they're mostly either exact reposts of press releases, or primarily press releases with a couple comments before/after the repost. Either situation doesn't really constitute significant coverage. If this is all the sourcing that is out there, I'd !vote for delete. Sergecross73 msg me 16:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm? I'm fairly certain a source is not reliable until shown that it is. Can you show those sources all exhibit the quality controls we expect of a reliable source? (I have asked a question at WT:V#Default status of a source regarding this since there does not appear to be an obvious answer in policy/guideline.) --Izno (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, regardless of default status, as soon as its been questioned in any capacity (as Zxcvbnm has done above) that WP:BURDEN would basically require TheMagnificentist to prove their assertion that it's reliable anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 16:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Though Sergecross is right, it is to be noted that there is a discussion of the burden issue at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Default_status_of_a_source. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 15:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable video game failing to satisfy WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. The two non-primary sources, one MMORPG is just an announcement and Xsolla does not appear to be reliable and is not independent (it's an interview). Of the four sources above, all appear to be brief announcements, feature lists and basically PR. No content to do proper WP:WAF. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Weeks have passed from initial comment, and no better sources have been provided, and I'm not convinced the current ones are WP:RSs or provide significant coverage, so I think it fails the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 20:43, 24 August 2017 (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/Wild_Terra_Online&oldid=1143891441"