Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eclipse phase(Game)

Eclipse phase(Game)

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

Non-notable product. Is not released under creative commons (only the text of the website is), recently created, so WP:CRYSTAL on notability. CSD-A7 needs to include a provision for non-notable products. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 14:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article establishes notability. Whether or not the subject is freely licensed has no bearing on the deletion of its article. I'm not sure what "WP:CRYSTAL on notability" means - although the game makes predictions about the future, the article makes none and the game is currently for sale. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I do not see how this is notable. Ghits are primarily blog type announcements of upcoming release. No GNEWS of substance. WP:CRYSTAL applies. ttonyb1 (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the H+ Magazine article? Would you please elaborate on your WP:CRYSTAL argument? --Explodicle (T/C) 15:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability needs to be established. As of the current version of the article, notability is not established. On the site, it even says that the game is not out yet (ex Pre-Order information released on 08/23/2009 - 12:53). Besides essentially self-published promotional "citations", there is no notability of the product asserted (besides the removed erroneous statement that it is released under CC), and any speculation on its notability in the future as a basis for notability now is a WP:CRYSTAL failure. Thus, I feel it should be deleted per WP:NOT and WP:NN. On hindsite, ignoring a lack of {{db-a7}} support for NN products, I should have nominated this for {{db-context}} ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 22:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current state of the article doesn't matter. With regards to your example, if you read the page you'll see that it's a pre-order for the hardcover; they link to where the PDF is available for sale. Which part of the Wikipedia:General notability guideline is not being met here? --Explodicle (T/C) 14:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion of notability, which is absent from the article. Wikipedia is not a directory/list of everything that exists. It's fine as it is to add it to some "list of article" with the lack of notability as it is, but without asserting notability, it should not have its own article, as stated in WP:NN. As for a rationale of why it is not notable, read the article: {quote|Eclipse Phase is a science fiction role-playing game with transhumanist themes. It is published by Catalyst Game Labs.}}. That's it, nothing else, no GNEWS citations that are barely RS (since nowadays practically everything is reviewed regardless of notability), and the only citation added seems like partially self-promotional (Q&A section). Even the comments (ex "Of course, TH ideas aren't new to science fiction or RPGs: for example, Transhuman Space RPG. How does this compare?") on the page seem to imply non-notability. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 14:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no part of the WP:GNG actually says an "assertion of notability" is required within the article content. You're saying the GNG has a content requirement, but what I'm reading in the lead says "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles." --Explodicle (T/C) 15:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The number or quality of Google hits you get is irrelevant. I'm sure you can find a limitless number of poor sources or search engines that can't find good sources. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The interview is not self-promotional. H+ Magazine is not affiliated with Posthuman Studios. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what unverified Nate says. Notability is determined by reliable sources, not their anonymous comments. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that it was a content guideline. It is an article guideline. Sure, it can be mentioned in wikipedia, but does it deserve it's own article? Unless it asserts notability, it does not, as stated in WP:NN. Also, in reply to J Milburn below, try to avoid WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments, Tunnels and Trolls is in because of its age and historical impact. Eclipse Phase isn't even out commercially in retail yet (hardcover), and was released on the 23rd of last month, hardly "historical notability". Tunnels and Trolls article asserts notability (2nd game of genre), this article does not assert notability at all, besides "citing" a Q/A and/or review of the game that basically describes the game, which is de facto going to exist because nowadays, almost all games are reviewed, no matter its notability. We are not a mirror of review sites, as wikipedia is WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 22:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An "assertion of notability" (or any text within the article) is content. I can make a whole bunch of "assertions of notability"... that it's licensed under the Creative Commons, or that it explores the concept of swapping out bodies, or that it has been optioned for a movie, but there's no telling if any of those will be good enough to satisfy you. Please quote the exact text of WP:NN that specifies what has to be in the article. --Explodicle (T/C) 00:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seem to be a few decent articles referenced. No, this isn't the first roleplaying game of its type, but so what? Tunnels and Trolls was hardly completely original, and that has its place in the RPG history books... J Milburn (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At first glance, looks to be adequately sourced, but:
- The first and second links are interviews with the creators. Great for verifiability, but not independent so no good for notability.
- The third says "I was sent a review pdf copy for the game." - not sure where we stand on that sort of thing but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.
- The fourth link is a just a few sentences about EP in a much larger convention report - hardly substantial coverage.
- The fifth link is just the license from the creators' website.

so with only one substantial item of independent coverage, the topic fails WP:N and should be deleted per WP:DEL. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Interviews seem fine for establishing notability provided that they are published in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. If a source elects to use an interview format, rather than rewrite the words of the person they interviewed into a narrative, then why does that matter. Jll (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order or what have you: Noian's statement that the game is not licensed under the Creative Commons is false. You're free to download the book from Posthuman's official torrent and read the bottom-right corner of page 5, where it states that "This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. ... (What this means is that you are free to copy, share, and remix the text and artwork within this book under the following conditions: 1) you do so only for noncommercial purposes; 2) you attribute Posthuman Studios; 3) you license any derivatives under the same license." Say what you will about the notability, but basing even a part of an AfD argument on false statements because you failed to research doesn't do much to support your claim, or your credibility. 68.226.207.5 (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]