Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachtronics Industries

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 no consensus. what a mess. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Zachtronics Industries

Zachtronics Industries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find video game sources: "Zachtronics Industries" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

(Note: Nomination took place under Zachtronics Industries title) Does not pass WP:GNG -- no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Some 10 min of searching returns only a couple very brief mentions about the company itself. Majority of sources discuss the SpaceChem video game. Since the article is asserting notability via a WP:NOTINHERITED argument, bringing to AfD instead of PROD. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep - Do as search for the individual games that Zachtronics Industries has made instead of just "Zachtronics Industries" and you will find much more coverage and notability. -Object404 (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

As already said, notability is not inherited. This article is about the company and not its games. I did a search and came up almost empty; feel free to provide links to significant third-party reliable coverage about the company. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

A 10-minute Google search is lazy searching. Please check the article now if it is more acceptable in its current state. -Object404 (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, this article/AfD are about the company (and/or Barth) and not the games. Of the 10 sources in the article, 2 are about Minecraft, 3 are about SpaceChem, 2 are about Infiniminer, 1 is a directory entry for the company, and 2 are Zachary Barth's interviews. The former 8 do not constitute to significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources (WP:GNG) for the company, as there is no significant mention of it. The latter 2 are good sources -- both significant coverage and reliable. But notability is not established when "the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people." (WP:CORPDEPTH). Interviews are not secondary sources, as the information comes from the subject itself, often without analytic or evaluative claims by the interviewer. The podcast interview is a little about Barth, mostly about SpaceChem and its development, and a bit about Infiniminer. The RPS interview has essentially the same layout. I'm afraid this is not significant, independent coverage of the company itself, even if you consider Barth to be synonymous with the Zach. Ind. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Just because you personally cannot find reliable sources on the internet does not make Zachtronics Industries "not-notable". Zachtronics has made games that have been enjoyed by thousands of users, one of which has created a new gameplay type/genre that has become influential in the industry and a growing number of developers/companies are building games in the same vein:

• “Minecraft” Lookalike “FortressCraft” Sells 16K On Xbox Live Marketplace Launch Day
• CraftWorld Announcement Trailer

This kneejerk reaction of yours is indicative of the deletion-happy disease of Wikipedia editors. People put painstaking hours, a resource that is significant, to contribute to the project and here you go declaring something "insignificant" because of certain rules. What is the spirit of Wikipedia? Wikipedia is here to provide information. This disease has caused a massive exodus of sincere volunteers out of sheer frustration.

Please read this entire Slashdot thread to get a small feel of what I am saying:

Saving Geek Lore and Other Wikipedia Castoffs Read the discussion by the users. That's just one example and there are many more all over the internet which talk about this frustration.

What does Wikipedia lose by having the article on Zachtronics Exist? Moreover, Zachtronics is not being given credit for creating an entire sub-genre of gameplay.

You obviously know this by looking at the references contributed and the links above, and yet you delete this because of petty rules. Yes, articles have to be encyclopedic, yes they have to have reliable resources, but just because you can't find information on a person or entity does not make him insignificant. For example, little is known about Shakespeare and his actual life and most that have been written on him is speculation and extrapolation by researchers. At the end of the day, these are speculation, and you call that more reliable than what you can see in front of you. As much as possible I'm trying to find citations on everything I've put here in order to satisfy "no original research", but it's a simple fact that very little information can be found about video games and video game companies. That does not mean they are not notable. Zachtronics has created at least 2 influential games and has created a new genre/game template out of his unique fusion of ideas. Doesn't that mean that Zachtronics is notable? I'm sorry about this rant, but I am about to give up on contributing to Wikipedia out of sheer frustration because of people like you. Why are you so delete-happy on information??? -Object404 (talk) 09:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Do not make this a personal issue; I did not nominate this out of spite. Would you rather contribute to the article for a month before someone else proposes it for deletion? I am not the only editor on Wikipedia and the article will not be deleted just because I nominated it. Irrespective of the greater purpose or spirit of Wikipedia, the notability is governed by WP:NOTABILITY guideline. Not by a subjective interpretation of the word, but by the "petty rules [sic]" -- significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. I think I spent enough time writing the reply above basing my argument on WP:GNG as clearly as I could. Again, I am referring you to WP:NOTINHERITED regarding other games/genre. Sorry if I come of rude by not responding to all your arguments (and tell me if you want me to); but in interest of the AfD process I will mostly address policy/guideline/consensus-related issues. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I am replying out of my general frustration on the general stance and reaction of "multi-wikipedia badge awarded" editors from the Video games WikiProject such as you as I have encountered this kind of behavior from other "established editors" and administrators from the Video games WikiProject multiple times. I would rather that you had helped flesh out the article than nominate it for deletion out of your laziness in doing 10 minute Google searches, and yes, it is better to wait for a month before nominating an article for deletion because what you did was to try to kill the article in its infancy. Notice the time difference from the creation of the article to the time you marked it for deletion. It is not personal, it is the general sentiment of other volunteers fed up with other wikipedians who do what you do, and subsequently leaving wikipedia and letting the quality and content stagnate for lack of information. Do you get what I say? Are my points valid? This is not a personal attack on you, it is a general sentiment. Next, I would like you to honestly answer the following four questions:

• Is Zachtronics Industries a notable game company or not?
• Is Zachary Barth a notable game developer or not?
• What do you think of the quality of the article now that it's been more fleshed out?
• If it is still lacking, is it worth contributing to and improving?

Thank you. -Object404 (talk) 11:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No matter how you see me or my contribution, I did not invent Notability, GNG, or AfD process and I am basing my arguments on these guidelines/policies. Of course, I do understand this is an indie company and I myself have previously argued for keeping indie material against strong opposition (e.g. AfD, me or AfD, me). But quality of an article is not related to the topic's notability. Whether we wait a day, a month, or a year. If sources appear that pass the article past GNG, then the article can be created and fleshed out.

Now about "honest answers". As per Wikipedia policies/guidelines: No, No, Start, N/A. My opinion: No, Yes, More or less okay for Start, Yes.

Now, I think Zachary Barth could have an article. In fact, you have pretty much rewritten this article into one about Barth. But that, of course, was not the nominated topic. Changes like yours is also a reason to delay nominating articles for AfD. But then again, this is the article space and not draft/userspace. But I digress. I think Barth would pass WP:BIO as major contributor to "blocky" genre with Infinminer and as the author of critically acclaimed SpaceChem (i.e. not WP:1EVENT). But that is very borderline, because he does not pass GNG per se (the two primary-source interviews are the only direct sources). If you want my subjective, biased (honest) answer: yeah, I think Barth should have a Wikipedia article. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.".

How about merging the articles, retaining one of them: Either Zachtronics Industries or Zach Barth, then have the chosen one be something the other one will redirect to? Although I'm leaning towards Zach Barth as the main article because of the way the article has been written and Zachtronics is Zach Barth, it would be a bit unfair for the other developers of SpaceChem because they also worked on it under the Zachtronics banner. If you think about it and take a hard look, the situation is exactly the same as with Minecraft and Markus Persson aka Notch who was a lone developer and the company he formed to handle Minecraft better, Mojang AB which is essentially an empty article that only contains the list of employees and various side-box information + logo. The only difference is that Notch (and Mojang afterwards) got much more media coverage because of the unbelievably ridiculous and fantastic amount of sales that Minecraft has gotten (over 2 million now, and they're rolling in money), that's why Mojang has a separate article. Thoughts? -Object404 (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You better not check Mojang's history for me PRODding it then :) I wanted to make the comparison too in spite of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But Persson's article was first, then Mojang due to new employees. GNG/N is still concerned with sources and not with what's "fair". Other developers of SpaceChem should be mentioned in SpaceChem article anyway. There are only trivial sources for Zachtronics and two primary ones for Barth. Can we say Barth is notable? GNG says interviews are primary sources and we need secondary to establish notability. Should we WP:IAR because Barth contributed to "blocky" genre and made SpaceChem? I don't know. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.".

Jesus Christ. What is wrong with you and your delete-trigger-happiness? You've become too wrapped up in rules that you've lost perspective of what this website is for. It is to inform people in an encyclopedic manner. Using common sense is not ignoring all rules, it's just applying common sense. Who are you to say that these people and that the company they've put up are not notable when they and their companies have created things that hundreds of thousands to millions that people enjoy? Internet searchability for "reputable sources" is not the be all and end all of everything especially when dealing with this kind of subject matter. Jesus Christ man. Be more constructive instead of being more destructive. This entire thread occurred because of your biases and preconcieved notions - you made our decision to kill the article in its infancy on the basis of lazy google searching instead of letting it evolve organically into a proper article. And what the hell: interviews with a subject not acceptable as source material for an article? Jesus Christ man, I hope you don't take this personally but you are a prime example of what is wrong with Wikipedia and why so many contributors have become fed up and have simply stopped abandoned it. Good day, sir. -Object404 (talk) 00:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I just read this suggestion and I'll leave it here: Wikipedia:Use common sense Please reflect on what it means and consider it for your future Wikipedia actions. -Object404 (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are cases for allowing an article to develop over time, but only in situations where sources exist yet simply haven't been added to the article. WP:V is a core content policy. If you can suggest sources which meet WP:SOURCE, please do so. Wyatt Riot (talk) 01:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. For any who have felt offended by my remarks, please give a long good read here so you can see what is seriously wrong going on here right now: http://www.google.com/search?q=wikipedia+delete+happy. For those who have the attention span of a gnat and can't be bothered to read what Google is already spoonfeeding you (back in our day, we had to use the card catalogue in the library and books didn't have automated "search functions"), this blog post gives a good synthesis: Wikipedia in Trouble as Volunteers Leave. I've wasted too much of my energy (which could have been used more productively on other endeavers) on this ridiculous thread, so let me just say this before I go: If an article isn't up to your standards, improve it and do the required research instead of lazily marking or proposing it for deletion. As an independent game developer what you kids do here is an affront to who I am and the entire indie gamedev scene. H3llkn0wz, let me congratulate you for being a worthless power-tripping armchair nerd collecting Wikipedia badges like Pokemon, trapped in the rules of sinking ecosystem devouring itself and the epitome of the reason of such decline. Pardon me this breach of decorum folks as per "no personal attacks" rule. I hope you understand why I feel this way, and having expended so much of my energy, allow me that small parting shot as consolation so that I feel a little better about this sad situation. Nothing personal, I am simply being sincere in my words. TTFN and stop being a waste of other people's time. From the bottom of my heart, -Object404 (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Never did I say primary sources are not allowed in an article. I very clearly said that GNG does not accept primary sources. As for the rest of the baseless personal attacks and accusations, I won't bother to comment on this thread further. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Barth has authored at least 2 influential and notable games. Ergo he is notable. Stop nitpicking. Common Sense. End of story. -Object404 (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, posted wrong link. Here it is so that you may understand "baseless" comments. http://www.google.com/search?q=wikipedia+delete+happy. Don't take it personally kid, my words aren't comments about you in particular, they're comment about all of the guys like you here. Enjoy collecting Wikipedia pokemon badges. May they bring you happiness and fulfillment in your life. TTFN -Object404 (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Please calm down. Object404, I understand your position very well and I would imagine that the reviewing admin will too. Your comments, however, are likely not to be well-received and they endanger your argument because some editors are apt to vote for or against the individual and not for or against the article based on its own merits. Becoming overly indignant risks editors losing sight of the support for the article and focusing instead on your negative comments.
Hellknowz is not an unreasonable person. He has already stated that his honest opinion is that Barth should have a Wikipedia article. And making accusations that he is unfairly deletion-inclined would not bolster your argument even if it were true (NB: I am not adopting that position myself). Instead you should dwell on the positive aspects of the article and the positive potential that exists to improve the article. Several of the sources you have used are listed at WP:VG/RS as reliable secondary sources and because they demonstrate the notability of Zach Barth, the article as it stands, I think you have a strong argument that the article meets the threshold for inclusion. Please try to remain calm for the good of the article you are arguing in favor of. -Thibbs (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

" some editors are apt to vote for or against the individual and not for or against the article based on its own merits. Becoming overly indignant risks editors losing sight of the support for the article and focusing instead on your negative comments." --Thibbs (talk) Then you pretty much confirmed the childishness and pettiness of Wikipedia editors and how broken the Wikipedia system for voting on what articles get the axe or not then, causing the mass exodus of productive volunteers out of disgust and frustration. Thank you. To quote volunteers like User:Zaorish who have abandoned Wikipedia out of frustration, "I hereby delete my account because I am now sure Wikipedia is a group of self-congratulating 13 year old delete-happy administrators. I have felt this many times, and persevered, again and again, but it simply is not worth my time to manage these children." -Object404 (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not a perfect system, but that doesn't mean that all members of it are childish and petty. Wikipedia has many many editors who are jerks and who get off on making other editors lives painful. There are also many editors who are simply trying to make it a useful encyclopedia. Leaving in disgust may only increase the concentration of jerks. If User:Zaorish had decided to stick around, he might have come to realize that there are more good editors than he had thought. -Thibbs (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:COMPANY WP:CREATIVE. Wyatt Riot (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Could you expand on this? What evidence do you have that the article is serving to overtly or covertly advertise? If there is no evidence then it might be a good idea to redact the comment as it treads close to WP:BITE. -Thibbs (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I think he may have meant WP:CORP. WP:COMPANY is a little easter egg redirect. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Ah, that makes much more sense. -Thibbs (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Heh, yeah, I indeed meant WP:CORP, sorry about that. "WP:COMPANY" was listed for some time as a shortcut for the page on notability of companies, when it really shouldn't have been. (H3llkn0wz has since fixed that, thank you.) However, since this page has been moved to a page on the individual rather than the company, I changed my edit to link to WP:CREATIVE. We still only have a few primary sources, plus other poor sources on the company, and some reliable sources about the game. Especially since this is now an article on a living person, we need high-quality sources about the man himself. As far as I'm concerned, nothing less than that is acceptable per our policies on WP:BLP. Wyatt Riot (talk) 10:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
• Rename to "Zachary Barth" and expand - Then redirect "Zachtronics Industries" to "Zachary Barth." The article meets the minimum requirement for notability via multiple secondary source RSes (Big Download, Rock Paper Shotgun, IndieGames, etc.). I see no sense whatsoever in simply deleting this information because it was poorly titled. -Thibbs (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Renamed the page to "Zach Barth". Close this discussion and move on. -Object404 (talk) 04:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep - The renamed article meets the thresholds for inclusion via the RSes I listed above and Object404 has demonstrated that it is capable of expansion. -Thibbs (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Technically, Rock Paper Shotgun, IndieGames are not secondary sources (Wikipedia:No_original_research#cite_note-1). Big Download is about Infiniminer, not Barth. They are all great and reliable sources for content, but AfDs are about satisfying GNG. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.".

I'm not sure. To me it looks like RPS and IndieGames establish notability. They are secondary sources insofar as Barth didn't have any influence on their decisions to interview him. Why would an independent organization interview a non-notable person? The interviews aren't billed as "common man on the street" interviews, instead both of them start by describing Barth's notability presumably to explain to the audience why they are interviewing him. The Big Download piece covers one of Barth's creations so it is entirely reasonable to include it in an article on Barth. If we're talking about a merged article that redirects Zachtronic Industries into Zach Barth then the notability isn't considered inherited, it simply relates to a broader topic (Barth + Zachtronic Industries). -Thibbs (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Do not delete this page. Infiniminer is important game, a starting point of a genre. The Infniminer was linked and crated many times in WP. --Kirov Airship (talk) 01:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Infiniminer was deleted because it could not pass GNG (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infiniminer). The following re-creation of the page against consensus was by you. "a starting point of a genre" is so far original research, and while I am not necessarily disputing this, I am waiting for reliable sources to confirm it (WP:VERIFIABILITY). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I want to say "keep" since the topic of the page is now "Zachary Barth" (the page should not have been moved mid-AfD though). However, as far as WP:GNG is concerned, there are two direct sources: RPS interview and IG interview, both primary sources, but from a reliable publisher (WP:VG/RS). The indirect sources are for Infiniminer, the game as inspiration and the contribution to the "blocky" genre. As I said above "Should we WP:IAR because Barth contributed to "blocky" genre and made SpaceChem? I don't know." That said, it's still days until Friday and I am open to (constructive, policy/guideline addressing) opinions. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.". Again, Common Sense principle. Published interviews are acceptable sources for Wikipedia. Let's close the book on this now as the article in its current state is a far cry from the one you wanted to kill. -Object404 (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I have said very clearly before that primary sources are not acceptable for general notability guideline criteria. I have never said that primary sources are not acceptable in an article at all.

Quote ""Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources". —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:COMPANY#Commercial_organizations:

"When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations and their products are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products."

Stop goddam eradicating useful information and wasting people's time by being a delete-troll.

10 of Wikipedia's wackiest arguments - In Depth: Behind every page there's a battle raging for control See #4. You already have Google and are very lazy in searching. Just Google "Zachary Barth" and see the first 20 pages of entries. You have wasted enough of my time. -Object404 (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Look, I have already said "I think Barth should have a Wikipedia article" and "I want to say "keep" since the topic of the page is now "Zachary Barth"". What more do you want of me? Do you think your personal attacks will lead anywhere? I know what GNG requirements are. And any Wikipedia sysop closing this AfD will know what GNG is. Do you believe that if I said "very strong keep" and did not give any secondary sources that would have an effect on the strength of my arguments? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:CREATIVE "2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." and "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work.." might be applicable? It would require sources discussion that he originated "blocky" genre though. I am also not sure if SpaceChem and Infiniminer on their own are "significant or well-known" works (excluding genre innovation). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

References

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.