Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Omega (game)

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--JForget 23:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Omega (game)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Upcoming game with, according to the article, "little to no media attention", and online promotional campaign wih, according to the article, no offline coverage. Main article violates WP:CRYSTAL and both fail to meet WP:N. Main editor removed prod, confusing it with vandalism and leaving a personal attack on my talk page, so I'm listing them both here. Percy Snoodle 10:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia's not a tool to promote your upcoming game. "Little to no media attention" likely means no coverage in reliable sources, meaning it doesn't meet the guidelines for notability. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 17:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just become aware of the previous AFD for EHWR; now noted above. Percy Snoodle 18:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page is not promotion for anyone's upcoming game. It was written by a Wikipedian user, not a PR agent. There are plenty of stubs that have little to no information about them, but are about upcoming games; shall we delete every single one of those as well? The article contains plenty of information about the game, and there are outside sources that give information, therefore it's not simply original research. There is no rule on Wikipedia that it violates, period. Just because something receives "little to no press" outside the internet is not a good reason for deletion. There is plenty of stuff on the internet that offline media doesn't cover. Again, there is no reason to delete this page. La Bicyclette 20:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, "little to no media attention" in the article refers to offline attention from mainstream television, radio, etcetera. I've changed the page to reflect this. Furthermore, there was no personal attack made, simply a warning/suggestion regarding vandalism, deletion, etc. Wikipedia is not a battleground. La Bicyclette 20:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keepthere's no reason to delete this under wiki policies and it's a helpful articleSakamonster 20:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC) — Sakamonster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep The article in question is well-written, informative, and the reasoning that it violates WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N is ambiguous at best. A quick Google search will show that the concerned game is at the very least well-known amongst its target demographic. Furthermore, the article does not seem even remotely PR-esque, nor is it overly speculative, as it only details facts about the gameplay of the concerned RPG, as well as related press coverage and events.69.1.52.252 20:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC) — 69.1.52.252 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment More information has been added under the "Press" section in the article. La Bicyclette 22:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's nothing promotional about the article, and it's useful information. It doesn't seem to violate the notability guidelines, and I don't think the grounds for deletion are very strong. 217.95.219.199 22:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC) — 217.95.219.199 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Nothing wrong with this article, useful information, used it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.249.15 (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC) — 24.202.249.15 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep It doesnt look promotional and it has some sources, no reason for it to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.223.135 (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC) — 71.7.223.135 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong Keep The game does exist, and the author of the article has no affiliation with the game makers (Mind Storm Labs) This article contains no opinions of the game, and simply has helpful information about it. This article was waiting to be created; an empty link had been on the disambiguation page for a number of months. The article in question is one more addition that helps keep Wikipedia complete as a whole. 71.200.136.20 03:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC) — 71.200.136.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Having a booth at a gaming convention, even a major one like Gencon does not prove notability for the company, let alone its products. All 'sources' listed are from the company or ads, none are independant. Edward321 05:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's an unreleased tabletop RPG, so of course it doesn't have a lot of press yet. But it seems interesting, and I'm sure there are plenty of people who would find the information useful. It sure doesn't look like promotional stuff to me, and just because it might not be as well known as, say, Dungeons & Dragons, that doesn't mean it's not notable. 71.37.167.150 06:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC) — 71.37.167.150 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Looks like this AfD was linked to from the Alpha Omega forums. As a result, I've placed the afdanons template on this AfD. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why is EHWR even mentioned in this discussion? It does not have its own AfD page, and the link located here redirects to the old discussion that already voted to keep the page. Alpha Omega, though related, is independent of EHWR, and the tag on the EHWR page shouldn't be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by La Bicyclette (talk • contribs) 03:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the two articles have been nominated together. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list multiple related pages for deletion. Percy Snoodle 09:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Both articles quote reliable published sources, which consider these games "worthy of notice".
Ukulele 17:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Really? All I see is just reprints of press releases and a non-notable RPG blog. The latter isn't a reliable source, and press releases are not enough to establish notability. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It asserts notability and it has coverage my multiple third party sources. Buspar 04:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment None of the listed references are third party, they are press releases, etc. Where does the article assert notability? Edward321 04:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we delete an article about an existing game, that means we must go through Wikipedia and delete every other game. That includes Monopoly, Candy Land, Super Mario Bros. and Dungeons & Dragons. --Koji 23:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not exactly a strong argument there. The games you mention have had coverage in reliable sources, which means they meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. This game and it's marketing campaign do not; ergo they are not notable. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Ooh... is dat some serious Wikitrolling? So your "argument" is that if it's obscure, it is not notable and must be deleted? Okay... delete this and this and this and this and this too. Here's some obscure authors too for shits and giggles: Diana Hignutt, Louise Cooper, and Brian Stableford. You've got a lot of deleting to do, as there's a lot of obscure things in the world that are in Wikipedia. Best get cracking so you can fulfill your goal of making this fine website one page long. --Koji 04:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You missed my point. Obscure is not the same thing as non-notable. Obscure things can have coverage in reliable sources, making them notable. Read up on Wikipedia's notability guidelines (which all those subjects you pointed out meet) first before making ridiculous claim and demands. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have, and they're obscure on this issue at best. --Koji 04:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems like the third and fourth references given on the list are actually the same press release from the company. Press releases aren't "third (or second) party" sources. As such, the claim that the game has "received attention" from RPGnet and Sekodu is true if you believe that regurgitating a company press release qualifies as real "attention". --Craw-daddy | T | 10:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in fact, the RPGNet and Sekodu links go back to a press release at PRWeb which was written by Tom McLaughlin at Mindstorm Labs - hardly independent. Percy Snoodle 11:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If the article is not researched or sourced enough, then put those tags on it, not an AfD. If it sounds too much like a press release, then edit it. I have heard about this game and the mechanic sounds notable and worth inclusion. Web Warlock 10:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment which game mechanic is that? Do you mean the dice pool or the customisability? Neither of those are new. Regarding the media coverage, neither the RPG nor the promotional game have had any third party coverage, and neither have had any coverage since shortly after the release. Notability is not temporary. Percy Snoodle 11:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment yes, but my ignorance of whether or not something is notable is not enough for me to choose delete over keep. I'd like to have the chance to research the game more without being under the gun of an AfD. Web Warlock 11:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment So s I understand it you agree that, as it stands, it looks non-notable; but you think there might be some evidence of notability if you had more time to check? The meat puppets brought in by La Bicyclette from the EHWR forums have failed to find any third-party coverage of a game that they're the experts on; all they've dug up is a few press releases written by the game's authors. I don't think there's anything else to find. Anyway, if they *did* find evidence of notabilty, they can always recreate the page and cite it there. Look at the sixth example in WP:PROBLEM. Percy Snoodle 11:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions and list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 12:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
Comment These should not have been listed together, given the prior AfD for only one of the two articles and the radically different citation-situation in the two articles. These are similar, but not similar enough to have been listed together. MrZaius^talk 12:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ethan Haas - Many borderline RS sources make it worthy of retention. Needs major cleanup, however, as half the article reads like a game manual or hint sheet. MrZaius^talk 12:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC) PS: Having had a chance to re-read the AfD, I'm somewhat surprised this even came up again. Closing admin had a perfectly acceptable rationale for closing keep that is no less accurate today. AfD was relatively recent, as well.[reply]
- Comment although I wouldn't have added EHWR if I'd been aware of its AFD at the time I nominated it, I do think it needs another look now that AO has been announced. It received some coverage because it was mistakenly associated with J.J. Abrams; when it became clear that it wasn't related to him, the coverage stopped; and since Notability is not temporary, temporary coverage doesn't make it notable. Percy Snoodle 12:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary. That said, the sources do appear to warrant review, and, possibly, a second AfD - just isn't nearly similar enough to be fairly considered here. MrZaius^talk 12:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Alpha Omega (game) - Absolutely zero assertion of notability, no secondary references whatsoever. PRNews is just that - just press releases. MrZaius^talk 12:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Alpha Omega (game) - Notability seems to be asserted, but not actually justified. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that this meets any sort of appropriate notability guideline. SamBC(talk) 14:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ethan Haas… - coverage in various online reports adds up to notability in my book. SamBC(talk) 14:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - these really aren't sufficiently closely connected to be covered in one AfD, in my opinion. This is evidenced by the number of people who feel that one is keepable and the other not. SamBC(talk) 14:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment athough that may turn out to be tha case, I don't believe it was obvious at first. If we do keep EHWR but delete AO, it may make more sense to merge AO into EHWR than to delete it outright. (though I still think merging both into J.J. Abrams would be the right thing to do, since all the EHWR coverage is about him, not EHWR.) Percy Snoodle 17:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Alpha Omega (game) - How can one even now this game exists, given that no sources are given about the game itself and that, well, it does not yet exist? A non-existing non-sourced subject does not deserve an article. Of course an article can be written when the game will be published and covered by reliable source. And, as a comment: I assume good faith as much as the next man, but how is it that so many anonymous editors are positive about the fact that the article is "useful" (which is not a reason for keeping) and that the authors are not affiliated with whomever produces the game? --Goochelaar 17:39, 28 September 2007 (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.