Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Protocol (video game)

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. MBisanz talk 07:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Protocol (video game)

[edit]
Beyond Protocol (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:N and WP:V: non-notable video game with a single article/review in a reliable source (GameSpy). Even that is suspect because an editor identifying himself as Executive Producer of Dark Sky Entertainment (the game's developer/publisher) stated on Talk:Beyond Protocol (video game) that the game only gets reviews when they pay for advertisements. While it appears he intended this as an indictment on the game industry, it also serves to question the integrity of any reviews, reliable source or not. There are also serious COI issues here, as at least several one of the editors appear to be connected to the game in some way. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the executive producer. GameSpy was one of the edits that did not require advertising purchases. It is valid. Along with GrrlGamer.com and many others. The real issue here is defining a notable editor. Notable is defined as recognized to be a disinterested 3rd party. Well, then if that is the case, we have plenty of those. If you require our company to purchase ads from Gamespot, PC Gamer, etc for notable edits, then you have completely no idea how the game industry works.

If you can correctly identify a RELIABLE SOURCE without hiding behind the general definition of the wikipedia guidelines, we can see what we can do. In other words, be specific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AureliusBP (talk • contribs) 21:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC) — AureliusBP (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As for COI issues, I can state that I am the ONLY person associated with Beyond Protocol on this topic. I watch all sites for any content pertaining to our intellectual assets. I can attest that there are a number of subscribing players that have put the wikipedia entry together. If you understand anything about Beyond Protocol, you will know that our "credits" list is quite limited and I can state that I am the only person who could even begin to have a conflict of interest. You will find that I only post in the discussion as it is a direct relationship of our trademarked, intellectual property of which I give permission to use on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AureliusBP (talk • contribs) 21:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC) — AureliusBP (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    • I have redacted some of my comments. I read your comments on Talk:Beyond Protocol (video game) again and noticed that you specifically mentioned the GameSpy review was published without you paying for advertisements. (I swear I read the opposite before, and I do apologize for my mistake.) I also regret the insinuation that there were other employees of DSE working on the page. I probably got that impression from the passionate replies on the Talk page, but that can be chalked up to their caring about the game. (Something I understand, believe me.) As for the definition of a reliable source, that is quasi-vague because it's always up to the Wikipedia community, which is why I always refer users to WP:V. The general consensus I've seen is that if there's an article on the source, then they are generally qualified to be used as references. I say "generally" because you'll always find sources which are notably for their sheer unreliability (The National Enquirer comes to mind). If you're looking for specifics, I'd throw out names like PC Gamer or Wired or something like that. Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reliable, independent sources that discuss this in any non-trivial way? No encyclopedia article. Dead simple (don't care who wrote the article or who didn't write the article; it's not notable or verifiable by our standards no matter who wrote it.)Bali ultimate (talk) 21:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The articles at GameSpy and Ten Ton Hammer seem to me to just squeak in under the notability bar. I reread the user's talk page comments, and I'm not convinced that they clearly say that these articles were published because of advertising money- nor am I convinced that this would render the sources no longer usable for demonstrating notability. There is a serious conflict of interest problem, but the correct response to that would be a neutral rewrite, and for the people who work for Dark Sky to stop editing the article. There is one of those editors who has behaved badly and been blocked, but that's outside the scope of this discussion. I don't think this game is very notable, but I'm not feeling that I can make a clear call for deletion, either. Other wise editors better-schooled in the ways of such games may disagree with me, and could even persuade me to change my mind. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article was NOT written by anyone with a conflict of interest. The article was written by the PLAYERS of the game. Aurelius has made comments in the discussion page to support the article but nothing more. This is entirely a player driven project that has the support of DSE but is not being written or controlled by them in any way. I myself am an avid player of the game and am in no way affiliated with DSE. The only person who works for DSE that has commented on this article is Aurelius. The biggest issue here seems to be one of notability. If you should do a search on "MMORTS" you will find very little out there in the way of information or notable sources. The reason being is that the MMORTS genre is very new and the only games which currently occupy it are independently developed games that are not very well known. Aurelius made the valid point that in order to get a review from any major "notable" source such as GameSpot, PC Gamer, etc one must pay exorbitant fees for advertising. This is something that is not easily accomplished by an independent developer in this market. The simple fact that Beyond Protocol EXISTS should be notable (In this persons opinion) due to the unique nature of it's position within the video game universe. Again, I believe despite the lack of reviews from the big guys there is ample evidence that Beyond Protocol is worthy of mention in Wikipedia. CoreyDavis787 (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC) — CoreyDavis787 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment quoting: "the MMORTS genre is very new and the only games which currently occupy it are independently developed games that are not very well known." That's a strong deletion argument you know. No one should object that after sufficient time has passed (days, weeks, years... who knows?) that it has become well-known and notable, then we might have a topic worthy of an encyclopedia article. But if there are no reliable sources yet then no article. WP:CRYSTAL might be a good one for you to read. Wikipedia is not here to help things become notable; in fact, using it in that way runs counter to what the encyclopedia is supposed to be about.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know about you, but I think that the fact user:AureliusBP threatened Wyatt Riot with legal action really smacks of WP:COI. -- Raziel  teatime  17:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There IS at least one reliable source, so the point that there are NO articles needs to stop. User:Wyatt Riot's comment about the GameSpy article being suspect based on one editor's remark calls any article into question. I admit that this game may not be as notable as, say an EA published game (yet), however, in terms of its genre, it is a milestone. In contest to User:Wyatt Riot and User:FisherQueen's concerns about WP:COI, yes, again, AureliusBP is the only person directly involved in DSE who has commented on this article. Even so, he did not edit the page itself in any way. Most of the rest of us are just players (the remainder are just wikipedia users). If anyone wants to make the point that those who have played the game can not be impartial editors/writers of an article, then that disqualifies anyone with first hand knowledge of anything for any article.ZyXHavocXyz (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC) — ZyXHavocXyz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. A lack of references does not always equal a lack of sources. The size of the player or fan base does not determine notability; uniqueness is a better measure. A suspicion that the content of an article is biased calls only for someone to rewrite it, not to delete the whole article. — db48x | Talk 23:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right, a lack of references doesn't mean there aren't any out there. But since Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth, we need those references in order to have the article. Having reliable sources is an inclusion criteria here on Wikipedia. Without them, there should be no article, no matter how wildly popular or innovative or significant the subject is. Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the WP:V a reliable source would be based upon "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.". The way this seems to be taken, at least for video games, is in the format of a review from a reliable source such as GameSpot, IGN, GameSpy, etc. I would like to point out that a "review" is not necessarily the only thing that these websites can do to verify the legitimacy of a game. For example, GameSpot has a landing page for most games regardless of whether there is a review. This page displays detailed information on a game regarding the release date, screenshots, news, patches, etc. Beyond Protocol has one such page on GameSpot here. This is not something created by the developers of the game or players but something that is done by GameSpot itself. I believe everyone here would agree that GameSpot is a reliable source for video games. As such I believe that the landing page alone should be considered a notable source. It may not be a traditional review or article per se but it is an unbiased statement of fact from a reliable 3rd party source. My point is that even though GameSpot does not have anyone reviewing the game, they still acknowledge the games existence and importance by establishing a section of their website devoted to the game. CoreyDavis787 (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC) — CoreyDavis787 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Changing my vote to Delete. I haven't been able to find any reviews or coverage of this game from any reliable sources outside of the GameSpy review, which is not enough to build an article around. It should be deleted until it gets more coverage. - Raziel  teatime  03:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Noteability is adequately demonstrated. Jtrainor (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note – Informal mediation has been requested by the users heavily involved with this article. See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-04/Beyond Protocol (video game). MuZemike 06:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note – also reported to the conflict of interest noticeboard. MuZemike 07:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough independent reliable sources to support a verifiable and neutral article. The IGN reference is only a landing page which doesn't count as independent coverage. Beckett.com has no indication of their editorial policies, they do however explicitely disclaim any editorial oversight: "Content is not necessarily reviewed by Beckett prior to posting and does not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of Beckett. Beckett makes no warranties, express or implied, as to the Content or as to the accuracy and reliability of the Content or any material or information that a Member transmits to other Members. If at any time Beckett chooses, in its sole discretion, to monitor the Services, Beckett assumes no responsibility for the Content, no obligation to modify or remove any inappropriate Content, and no responsibility for the conduct of the Member submitting any such Content." (from their Terms of Service). Other sources cited, including Ten Ton Hammer, are not considered as valid sources under the scope of Wikiproject VideoGames's source list. I'm also extremely shocked by the pattern of abusive behaviour and the multiple violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA across several talk pages by some of the keep voters. MLauba (talk) 07:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking sufficient non-trivial coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. The sources have been pretty exhaustively explored above and on the talk page, and I agree that the only remotely good one appears to be from GameSpy. However, I should note that the GameSpy article is not a review; it's a preview written last year. The fact that it has since generated no new content on that site I would actually call an assertion of non-notability. This also isn't the first time apparent users of the site came to support a Wikipedia article on the game. Beyond Protocol was speedy deleted four times and salted last year. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If Beyond Protocol was speedy deleted four times and salted, what has changed? Are there new third-party sources of sufficient quality to confirm notability? I don't see them. I don't believe that the GameSpy page alone is sufficient in quality or quantity of information, basically providing a few screen shots and a line or two describing the game but no real information about the game itself. Recreating the page under a different title is extremely troublesome and appears to be an attempt to sneak in through a side door after being refused admittance through the front dooor. I would suggest that an article be created and then placed under the proper, now-protected name Beyond Protocol by an administrator who is aware of the deletion history when there are reliable references available. The current article could be copied to the user space to preserve it until that time. I am sympathetic to the people involved but the subject of an article must be notable and well-documented. Too much of the current article is unreferenced simply because quality references are not available. Drawn Some (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, the sources, at least the ones I came up with in my below keep rationale, came out after all four deletions and salting. In this case, if the sources like the ones I mentioned were used when this article was recreated, I would not consider said recreation disruptive editing. Furthermore, all the deletions were per WP:CSD#A7 or WP:CSD#A3. In either case, this is exactly why deletion review was set up to address stuff like this. Someone should have put up a request there to unsalt and allow recreation of the article, citing the presence of new sources. However, I'll assume good faith that the creator did not know how to do that; after all, it was never deleted via AFD previously. MuZemike 15:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup – We got the Gamespy article as mentioned above. There is also an interview from IncGamers here talking about the game. There is also a review from Bright Hub here; I'm not sure if the site itself is reliable, but the credentials of the person doing the review gives it a good sense of reliability. We also have something from Softpedia here. There are other entries out there, but I wouldn't consider them reliable enough as far as verifiability is concerned. I think it barely skimps past the notability requirements – multiple reliable, independent sources, and a couple of them provide some decent coverage of the game. Needs some major cleanup, however, to maintain a neutral encyclopedic tone. The behavioral conduct should be left as a separate issue to work out. MuZemike 00:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree the only issues here are notability and verifiability. The incgamers interview is just that, and not third-party information, it is more akin to a press release. The brighthub article is a brief review of the beta test. The Softpedia article seems more like a valid third-party reference to establish notability--is there a precedence for accepting Softpedia as a source? Drawn Some (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Video games hasn't given Softpedia a positive or negative mention on their sources list, but it's a pretty trivial mention in any case. The Bright Hub link is also questionable considering their business model. Wyatt Riot (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning is that if Softpedia is universally considered a reliable source (it seems like they have editing departments, editorial oversight, etc., but that's only from a quick spot check), I would think it would be OK. I wasn't aware of the model of writing they use at Bright Hub. MuZemike 15:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Game software is not my area of expertise but I would tend to go with Softpedia being reliable for the reasons MuZemike gives. The article is brief but it is beyond a trivial mention and discusses some of the structure of the game, although still the beta version, along with some of the changes. I guess it would be like discussing a book that had been sent out for review in galley, discussing the chapter structure and basic plot along with some of the changes the author had made since the last draft. I am still concerned that it discussed a beta version.
So in the end I still think the Wikipedia article is premature and that sufficient reliable third-party resources just aren't available on the final product. A Softpedia article on the final release would have more weight as would other reliable independent resources. The pay-for-play model of some of the potential sources does mean that they are not independent/third-party. I'm going to leave my opinion as "delete" and if further sources become available or are brought to light in this discussion that might change my opinion then I can be notified on my talk page. Drawn Some (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note A Google search for "beyond protocol" game yields 81,000 hits. --Zippy (talk) 04:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Fly For Fun" shows 1,600,000 hits and its common abbreviation Flyff shows 663,000, but it's still not notable and has been deleted multiple times. Per Wikipedia:Search engine test, "Raw "hit" (search result) count is a very crude measure of importance. Some unimportant subjects have many "hits", some notable ones have few or none". It's really not a great method for determining whether to keep or delete. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but clean up - What I'm seeing here is one user unprecendently going after one article out of spite. If you look at the other games of this similar MMORTS genre (which were made evident to wyatt already), the user has not been critical of them. Their wiki articles have existed much longer than this one, yet this one is already nominated for deletion after only a few weeks. Take a look at Saga or Mankind, MMORTs that has had wiki articles up for extended periods of time yet they are well below wiki standards. Again this article has barely been up for a month yet it already gets put up for deletion by Wyatt WHILE new users are diligently trying to improve it. Wyatt only continually deletes references and cites the vague WP guidelines with little input on how it can be improved. This article needs clean up and should not have been put up for deletion so prematurely, especially with the new users trying to contribute to this article. Under WP:Newcomer guidelines of not biting the newcomers, Wyatt should be helping to contribute to this article and is acting unfairly but putting it up for deletion. Due to this, I cannot see how one can assume good faith with Wyatt and it seems that others agree. Give the article a chance, I would also like to point out that Beyond Protocol went live in November and was a beta version before then. Due to this, it has been deleted several times during beta but now users are trying hard to mold this article into shape since it went live with as much coverage as this infantile genre receives. As for Raziel, if you are requesting to be a mediator, you should be working towards a consensus that the two sides can agree to and not making a judgment that will make your mediation bias in nature. As you have already made a decision, I do not see how you can say you can still mediate as you should have a neutral perspective with an opinion and not a position statement. --Btejada (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC) — Btejada (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Well, please do assume good faith. Wyatt routinely makes good edits to VG articles and I assure you he has no grudge against genres of games. Online games tend to fall under heavy scrutiny because there's so many of them of no particular note. Marasmusine (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Marasmusine. The onus is on you to assume good faith, even if you don't agree with the nominator. Also note other stuff exists. Other articles will be taken care of in due time. Also, the verifiability policy and notability guideine are not vague; these are two common and important ways to gauge whether or not an topic or subject can stand as its own article. Finally, don't abbreviate as Wiki. While seasoned editors should take caution in not being mean to newcomers, the same editors can also become stifled when that abbreviation is used, especially when there are tens of thousands of other wikis out there. MuZemike 17:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - external links are just about satisfactory (other articles have been kept on less...) but I propose rewriting the article from scratch. (The first two sections are "Solving the technology issue" and "Strategy and Offline Issues"? Gggaaaaah. How about we start with a nice basic "History", "Gameplay", "Critical reception"?) Marasmusine (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but improve --- Hello, I'm an avid MMORTS player (mainly played Ballerium, Saga, and Beyond Protocol), really wanted to contribute to these articles as my first try at editing but I feel the need as a newcomer to give my input instead due to the current situation. I think I can see why some new users are questioning the integrity of the nominator when comparing the same genre wikipedia articles (Saga,Mankind, Beyond Protocol). If you look closely, not only is there a huge time gap difference between them, Beyond Protocol article has actual references and has several active users that are working on it. When compared to no references whatsoever and the complete lack of effort and activity of Saga and Mankind wikipedias, this Beyond Protocol article at least deserves a passing grade (however much more work it needs). As for the other articles being dealt with in due time… have you considered how long they have been up and haven’t been touched? Please take a look. I don’t see how this nomination for deletion can be justified in all honesty, especially when it is still quite active with new users asking how to make it better. Shouldn’t “seasoned” users be helping instead of constantly deleting with little input (seems like Wyattriot is gaming the system when you take a look at the logs). Also, WP guidelines in my opinion are vague and open to interpretation is it not? What meets the standards of others does not apply for someone else. That is why there is discussion in the first place. I believe all other avenues should have been completely exhausted before even considering nominating for deletion. In conclusion, I vote keep at the least as I don’t see how this can be justified for deletion with the time span it has been up, the effort and willingness of new users, and what seems like a bullying of the article. I am willing to give contributions myself to make these MMORTS articles better but it seems like a very hostile environment right now from a community that should be more welcoming. --Kheldara (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC) — Kheldara (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • I'll repeat exactly what I had said above (and I note the similarity in the two previous keep !votes): The onus is on you to assume good faith, even if you don't agree with the nominator. Also note other stuff exists. Other articles will be taken care of in due time. Please refrain from taking pot-shots at the nom. MuZemike 22:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This boils down to WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:ILIKEIT. Keep voters ought to really focus on this article's merits rather than attacking the nominator or trying to point out that other articles are in a worse shape. As for gaming the system, recreating a salted page under a slightly different name to avoid the permanent protection on Beyond Protocol would be a fair case of pot calling kettle black if we weren't assuming good faith. Last but not least, the policies are binding, in particular verifiability through independent reliable sources. I kindly suggest addressing this issue rather than pointing at other poor articles or continuing with the ad hominem against the nominator. MLauba (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apology I should not attack the nominator. Im merely pointing out a guideline from the same pool of guidelines that everyone is referencing correct? Its enlightening on the points of WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:ILIKEIT though. In my defense I've stated exactly my opinion from what I was able to gather from all the post here. But I do understand and will retract that part of the statement but the rest does address the article from my perspective. This article does not have an abundant amount of solid resources but the one solid Gamespy article and minor references. I'd still urge keep as one solid verifiable source is enough for this article to at least exist and urge continuous improvement. Kheldara (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2009 (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/Beyond_Protocol_(video_game)&oldid=1145708272"