Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hidden blade

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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden blade

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

Fails to demonstrate significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Ironholds (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only ref is another wiki, not notable. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Completely misses notability guidelines. --Ezhuks (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Hidden Blade - Wikipedia is not a game guide. Not a copyright vio or anything, though, and maybe some of this can be cited and scrunched over to one of the game articles at some point. --EEMIV (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Google news archive search for "Hidden blade" AND "Assassin's Creed" shows 70 results. [1] They all mention it, and sometimes its cool new upgrades for sequels, but I don't see any great detail about it. Lot of stuff to look through. Was it voted the coolest video game weapon ever somewhere? Characters get on list like that, published in notable magazines, but I'm not certain if weapons do. Dream Focus 11:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Re: GAMEGUIDE, see Stutter step and 26 other articles in Category:Tennis terminology; Golf swing, and 37 articles in Category:Golf terminology; 164 articles in Category:Chess openings, and 23 articles in Category:Bridge squeezes. There is a double standard being applied here. Anarchangel (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Fixed link Anarchangel (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a rather WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comment. Your wording seems to imply I'm being biased in my nomination, or the commentators here are being biased in their judgments - if you wish to provide the names of unreferenced articles in those categories, feel free. Ironholds (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - I am sorry that there was a misunderstanding; I never intended for my comment to reflect on the nomination. EEMIV was the first and at the time the only person to mention GAMEGUIDE; I was responding to his use of it. Anarchangel (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I know what you mean, and you're right that video games aren't treated the same way as sports. But I would suggest that there is only a handful of sports notable enough to have those kind of articles, and they will all have lots of enduring notability. Whereas there is a vastly higher number of video games out there, and any particular game tends to only be of note for a few years before technology and the the fanbase moves on to something new. e.g. if we were writting this fifteen years ago the weapons of Duke Nukem and Quake would have been very notable, but not so much now (although the BFG has an article).--ThePaintedOne (talk) 11:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - - - (as the indenting hopefully indicates, this was added after the response below; just making sure, tho') But do you agree, ThePaintedOne, that GAMEGUIDE is flawed in this respect? I don't mind editors asserting that game mechanics articles should be deleted because the game mechanics of a less notable game does not meet WP:N, I mind that editors who intuit that an explanation of circle strafing is sort of like a walkthrough, which is sort of like a how-to manual, use WP:GUIDE as an additional criteria for game mechanics articles. And there is no excuse at all for the inevitable votes to delete because an article mentions circle strafing and other similar techniques as available to use in the game, which happens often, or used to, when there were still some game articles around to nominate. Anarchangel (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would disagree. The question here is whether or not this page meets WP:GNG. That's a test all of the articles Anarchangel has showcased will also be expected to meet. If there is any double-standard here, it's one being played by reliable sources such as newspapers - who care a lot about tennis, but not so much about computer games. That isn't something we can fix, and it isn't something worth being brought up. Ironholds (talk) 11:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would broadly agree with that, although I think it is relevant that notability is supposed to be enduring. e.g. football has stayed relatively unchanged and popular for a long period of time, whereas the vast majority of computer games appear, are popular for a few months, then fade away to obscurity. When you are talking about a relatively minor facet of one game, that gives you a pretty slim piece of notability. To try and give a comparison (and this is awkward), an article on a commonly used football technique might be notable, but an article on a technique that one player used in one tournament but was then not seen again, probably isn't. Other than maybe as a mention in the article of that player or tournament. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Alright. Very good. And I concede that the blade may not be used outside of the Assassin's Creed series. But it isn't going away, within that series; using your analogy, it has already been used and will be used in more than one "football game". I note that you conceded awkwardness; I trust that you are referring to comparing one player's single appearance in a single football game to one vid game? Perhaps you could allow, one player's career, since each vid game is a release within a market, all the people who buy it, the popularity of it, etc etc? In which case, if a player used a technique throughout their career, and it was attributed to them, and no one else did it, could it be notable? Well, I stay about as far away from spectator sports as I possibly can (sigh), but are there not trademark victory dances that some players do? In this context, I can see that the precedent seems to be for collections of such things to be notable, but singular occurrences of them are not. So then I have to concede that it seems as though proximity mines in first-person shooters would be notable, just as Save point should be, but unless and until the hidden blade becomes used in other games, it is not. Anarchangel (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2011 (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.