Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinect Sports

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kinect Sports

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

WP is not a crystal ball. There is no evidence of notability yet; it should wait till it is released and becomes notable etc. Kayau Voting IS evil 03:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Flagship title for the Kinect hardware, being released on a major platform. Comparison to WP:NFF shows that this does not violate WP:CRYSTAL. --erachima talk 05:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entity does not exist. WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Limited media attention as yet. Can we at least wait for these things to come out before we write them up? Herostratus (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Entity is in development. Not existing and being in development are different things, and WP:CRYSTAL only applies to articles that are about things far enough off that we cannot confirm any information regarding them. In this case, we're talking about a game that's less than 4 months off. --erachima talk 21:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 13:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) Ost (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm the creator of this page and I see it far from crystal ball-ism: it's coming out in november which is less than half a year away, many games with articles have relese dates much much farther away. Also this is kind of a killer app for the Kinect system, so several people are going to be intrested in finding out what this is about before it's release. --Deathawk (talk) 23:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm only seeing one source in the article, but it's very solid. WP:CRYSTAL wouldn't seem to apply as there are plenty of sources showing the game exists [1] for example. Hobit (talk) 00:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - a quick search of WP:VG Reliable Sources turns up over 10 pages of results, with several useful references on the first two pages. Article needs cleanup and additional sourcing, not deletion. --Teancum (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion below. Delete without prejudice. - Fails WP:N & WP:V due to lack of second or third party sources, WP:CRYSTAL applies here in the loosest of senses. We've had articles on similar subjects deleted on similar grounds once or twice before. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Those aren't similar. The first one isn't even to an upcoming game but to a disambiguation page that some people felt was no longer needed. The second is to a game whose only known information at the time was that it was planned to be released the following year & a single picture of official artwork. This is a game that is coming out in less then four months & was playable at this year's E3. SNS (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. Now address the lack of sources issue. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check out my comment above. Plenty of hits on WP:VG Reliable Sources, several of which are useful. --Teancum (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any special reason why these sources haven't been added to the article yet? -- Jelly Soup (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect no one else has added them for the same reason you haven't. Keep in mind we are debating if the topic should have an article, not if this one is the article we should have. Hobit (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD means Articles For Deletion, not Topics For Deletion. Sources have been found, notability has been established. However, unless those sources are added to the article, it still fails Wikipedia standards and is a candidate for deletion. Yes, I understand the process isn't that cut and dry, which is why I'm switching my vote to keep and request the article be tagged for clean up once kept. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reasons mentioned in above comment SNS (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2010 (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.