Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chrono Break

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 no consensus, even with the GA arguments discounted (GA isn't related to notability or deletion, as noted below). For the rest of the discussion, there is disagreement on whether this is appropriate as a standalone article or should be merged. That's an editorial decision, and discussion of that matter should continue. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chrono Break

[edit]
Chrono Break (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a rumor page that uses all "assumptions" not for wiki. Tyros1972 Talk 06:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yeah I thought of that after I nominated, but I agree with a redirect. Tyros1972 Talk 11:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Are you kidding me? It's a Good Article! Terrible nomination, completely misrepresenting the article. It's not a collection of rumors or assumptions. It's a ton of commentary on a prospective game provided through over 20 reliable sources and commentary from the company and developers. Please read up on the WP:GNG and WP:BEFORE. A game does not need to be released in order to meet the GNG, its just needs coverage in reliable sources. This has plenty. Sergecross73 msg me 12:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't see why CB needs an entire page dedicated to it, a redirect and added into a smaller section would be fine for this. The game not only was not released but does NOT even exist! Tyros1972 Talk 06:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're misrepresenting it again. There's many confirmed facts in there. (For example, Hironobu Sakaguchi literally said they were working on story ideas. Not rumor. Reliable sources confirm an exact quote. Additionally, rumor is acceptable as long as its presented by reliable sources and not misrepresented as fact or anything. Every sentence is sourced, and a vast majority of the sources are deemed reliable by consensus at WikiProject Video Games. Lastly, you'll notice that "existence" is not, in fact, one of the criteria at WP:GNG. Just coverage by reliable, third party sources, is. Sergecross73 msg me 13:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Some other thoughts:
Just some other thoughts for consideration. Sergecross73 msg me 15:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The rational for the nomination is not an accurate assessment of the article. This is not a collection of rumors but coverage of an actual game that did not get released. It may be possible to make a case for for removal but at worst that would be a merge not deletion. That being said I do not see a case here nor is the rumor argument even remotely strong enough here.--70.49.73.6 (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - The article is backed by reliable sources, so a deletion is very bad idea. Perhaps you could consider a merge instead if you feel the length is insufficient, but you dont want to bulk up the series article too much. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - There's very little of value here. This topic fails WP:N, it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, not a single source discusses the subject directly in detail. It's a synthesis of single sentence quotes, primary sources, and original research. For example, the entire first half of the Signs of life section is pretty much original research, unsupported by the citations. The entire trademark history only points to primary sources.
Cancelled games are notable if they meet the criteria at WP:N. Fortress (Grin) does, Sonic X-Treme does. But this isn't even a cancelled game, it's a project that may or may not have ever existed, it's WP:CRYSTALLY speculation. Redirect to Chrono (series). - hahnchen 22:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only part of "Signs of Life" that is really synthesis is the subsection title itself. Rename it to something less suggestive, or work it into other sections, and any OR problems are eliminated, as the info itself isn't jumping to any conclusions. As for the rest of your argument, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree that major publications like Game Informer or Famitsu discussing it doesn't establish notability. I certainly think it does, let alone the other 20+ sources... Sergecross73 msg me 23:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start with the first sentence - "Hopes for a sequel were raised when Masato Kato returned to Square Enix to work on games of the World of Mana project." "Hopes for a sequel were raised" is original research. Despite the 20 sources, these do not "address the subject directly in detail" as required at WP:N. - hahnchen 23:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're still talking clean up issues - AFD is not clean up. This is easily fixed. Reword it to something like "Despite the hurdle of many key staff leaving the company, they still continued to work with one another in some capacity. Kato reunited with Square to work on the World of Mana project, Mitsuda worked with Kato on Kirite etc etc. Sergecross73 msg me 23:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What "hurdles", how is any of this relevant to Chrono Break (which would more accurately be titled Hypothetical Chrono series sequel)? Where's your source linking the two? You're suggesting that we replace one piece of original research with another. When sources have not discussed the subject directly in detail, it fails WP:N. I elaborated on the original research to show that little would be lost in a redirect. - hahnchen 23:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you really ready the entire article? Elsewhere in the article, RS's directly quote the creators in saying that reuniting the original dev team was a hurdle to overcome in making this game. Yeah, it's easy to tag just about anything as OR if you don't even try to attribute info to sources... Sergecross73 msg me 23:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you really read WP:SYN? "If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research." Tanaka gives a one sentence reply in an article where the subject is not covered directly in detail. Editors have used that as a pretext to OR speculate on the working relationship between Kato and Mitsuda - attributing info to the source "Deep Labyrinth (DS) Screenshots". I'm trying, and it's coming up blank. - hahnchen 00:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tanaka's quote, in response to the question about the future of Chrono, is that it its difficult to reunite the old team members, and that reuniting the old team members would be necessary to recapture the same feel. He says this because many staff members left to another company. (verifiable) Then there's sources verifying that, despite this, staff are in fact working together on other projects, like Kirite and Deep Labyrinth. (verifiable.) I don't understand what part is falling through the cracks for you, its all clearly stated. You don't see the relevance of past creators collaborating with one another on other projects, when its been specifically stated by one of the creators that being able to work together would affect the future of the project? (You are probably right about the "Screenshots" source not being good, but it was a deadlink for me, so I couldn't check. Regardless, it was replaced with a reliable source within 30 seconds worth of a Google search, which again leads me to my thought that most of the concerns are just clean up issues...) Sergecross73 msg me 01:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • GA's can be deleted, sure, but to say it "doesn't matter" is quite right to say either. To pass a GA, that means at least one editor put a ton of work into it, and then at least one editor gives it an in-depth peer review. It takes a lot of experience and knowledge with Wikipedia to do these things. I just find it hard to believe that 2+ experienced editors were so far off base with their conclusion, that not only was there GA review wrong, but the article didn't even deserve to exist... Sergecross73msg me 12:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen GA's that are well written but sometimes fail WP:NOTABILITY. More commonly, I've seen very notable articles that aren't GA. GA nomination doesn't mean the article is perfect. It may have been better and more factual at one point, but given it is already considered for deletion, it has fallen far. Konveyor Belt yell at me 16:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you give an example of a GA that fails WP:N? Also, no one has asserted that "GA=perfect", and just because an article is nominated for deletion does not necessarily say anything about the article either. It could just be a bad nomination. (The fact that the article hasn't received a single "Delete" !vote after about 10 commenters is an indication that AFD wasn't really the right avenue for this, for example.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I meant another article, I already know your stance here. You made it sound like finding GA's that fail WP:N was a common occurrence while you browse Wikipedia or something. That sentiment seems strange to me, that certainly hasn't been my experience in the last 5 years... Sergecross73 msg me 17:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have reorganized/rewritten some of the article, replacing some of the questionable sources with reliable sources, and rewording it so there's less OR-based jumping to conclusions; it sticks closer to just presenting the facts by the sources provided. Sergecross73 msg me 13:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rumored Keep - I speculate that this well-sourced GA about a notable topic will not be deleted. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 23:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided The article is well written, well sourced, and focused. But the problem is that it's more about a sequel in general rather than Chrono Break...it could be organized even more in a way that shows how Chrono Break had caused a want for a Chrono sequel. But...if it can't make that connection, I may have to vote for merge to the main article.Lucia Black (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me, if an article is well written, sourced, and focused, then its something that is worth keeping. I'm not opposed to holding a rename discussion or RFC post-AFD, if that helps. Sergecross73 msg me 18:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree that it is focused. There are still significant WP:SYN concerns even after recent edits, removing focus, and just serves to pad it out. "Kato and Mitsuda again teamed up to do a game called Deep Labyrinth for the Nintendo DS" - the source has nothing to do with Chrono Break or a hypothetical sequel. - hahnchen 19:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • More cleanup issues. It's common to add a sentence or two about related projects in game/film/music articles. It's fine if its just a sentence or 2 at the end. Worst case scenario, remove sentence if there's consensus... Sergecross73 msg me 20:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is obvious. If the source matter is notable (last time I checked, canceled projects, lost works, and items in development hell all still are notable), and if it's well-sourced, then the only remaining complaint is its size, which is specious—not only because that's a bit of a bogus complaint on an encyclopedia documenting all notable minutiae (there are thousands of articles smaller than this that would never be deleted), but also because the article's not that small. You can't shoehorn this into the the Chrono series page without dwarfing the other game sections, or at least requiring them to be expanded to three or four times their current size. It's just bad business. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 04:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment problem is its more of a canceled trademark rather than a game being developed. The article is more about a hypothetical sequel than it is about chrono break specifically. If more info is found connecting the current info with chrono break, it may be saved.Lucia Black (talk) 07:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the game had actually been developed and a beta form built like Sonic X-treme, then I would have voted to keep the article. But since the only real form of evidence that Chrono Break was to be made was a copyright, the article is just speculation on what could have been. Konveyor Belt yell at me 20:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTNEWS is just what keeps people from writing an article over every little story that shows up in the news, (like petty crimes that get coverage in local news outlets, but largely don't stand out as notable for anything) or people offering "breaking news" type updates to an article all the time. NOTNEWS isn't something you'd want to quote right now, its pretty irrelevant to this article. (Also, "WP:NEWS" isn't even a policy at all...) Sergecross73 msg me 17:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it's not the centerpiece of my argument, but it is a valid point to make. Passing a GAN means the article received extensive attention from 2+ experienced editors, and not only survived a peer review, but was deemed to meet a standard far higher the notability requirements. Seems pretty relevant to me. Sergecross73 msg me 00:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, I know there are no guarantees, but realistically, do you think 2+ experienced editors spent significant time in this article, making sure it hits those key points at WP:GACR like "Verifiable with no original research" and not look at the notability requirements? It may not explicitly be a bullet point in the checklist, but its virtually impossible to do everything required of a GA and not look at the key aspects of notability. That's the reason why different people keep bringing it up; its just so unlikely to be overlooked the GA process. Sergecross73 msg me 01:15, 21 September 2013 (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/Chrono_Break&oldid=1144345968"