Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NeoTokyo

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. Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NeoTokyo

Currently non-notable computer game. Still under development and in 'closed testing', and a lack of third party references or sources would appear to violate WP:N, WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL. CultureDrone (talk) 09:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pn CRYSTAL Chzz ► 15:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references to verify that this is not a hoax. --DAJF (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how this works but...

There are plenty of "In Development" games on Wiki. This one is set to be released this month. I gave proper credit and sources, so I have no idea what you're on about. I gave you 3-4 links to Official sites with information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkilbride (talk • contribs) 17:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To cite another example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Mesa_(video_game)

It's also an unreleased mod for the Source Engine, that is currently in Closed Beta testing. It's at the same status as NeoTokyo, set to be released this year. It also won Moddb's Best Upcoming(NeoTokyo), and has an Official Trailer released, that you can view here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOh3xYPrYF8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkilbride (talk • contribs) 17:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, no, I'm afraid. Notability is established through multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the topic. The "Official sources" given are not from reliable sources or are otherwise from primary sources, neither of which is enough to establish said notability. Articles about games "in development" are OK, provided there has been significant coverage, i.e. previews from reliable sources. Otherwise, it is nothing else but looking into a crystal ball, in which such content is generally not allowed here. We also do not judge whether an article should be kept (or deleted) based on the merits of other articles.
As a viable alternative, you could have the article userfied into your userspace so that you can keep working on it, and when enough coverage via reliable secondary sources pop up, it can be moved back into the mainspace. MuZemike 19:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Source engine mods. Yet another Source engine mod in development. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it your own webhost, judging on how the article is written. However, I would not oppose to userfication as I noted above or restoring the redirect once coverage via reliable sources come up. MuZemike 19:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moddb is VERY NOTABLE! IT HAS IT's OWN WIKI PAGE! NeoTokyo is highly rated on both it, and Youtube! It's the SAME THING AS BLACK MESA, BLACK MESA IS IN THE EXACT SAME SITUATION AS NEOTOKYO, YET YOU CHOOSE NOT TO ALLOW NEOTOKYO?

http://www.moddb.com/ It is a very prestigious site, any mod or Indie game hoping to be big is featured there. The trailer is also on Fileplanet http://www.fileplanet.com/196494/190000/fileinfo/Half-Life-2:-Source---Neotokyo-Trailer-720p-(HD)

Podcast 17 also makes notes of it several times. ALL OF THESE WERE POSTED IN THE ARTICLE ITSELF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkilbride (talk • contribs) 21:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's SOUNDTRACK!

http://cdbaby.com/cd/edharrison —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkilbride (talk • contribs) 21:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Using all caps doesn't give any more weight to your argument. Youtube and fileplanet definitely do not count as reliable sources, and just because moddb is notable doesn't automatically give it the credentials of being a reliable source, nor is notability inherited. In fact, moddb has been explicitely invalidated as a reliable source (see Checklist of Reliable Sources for Video Games). I suggest you review the reliable source guidelines before continuing the argument. MLauba (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect WP:CRYSTAL and per MuZemike. MLauba (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the disambiguation page Neo Tokyo. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 07:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Neo Tokyo. Game is not notable due to lack of extensive coverage in reliable sources. The ModDB entry is irrelevant since it's just a self-written summary. Marasmusine (talk) 12:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the fact that the owners of Moddb itself will swear by it's validity and you can listen to their Modcasts and interviews about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.236.159 (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

moddb is currently not considered a reliable third party source for the purpose of including an article. MLauba (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If what has been said is true, then I request all Mods on Wikipedia that haven't been released and are in closed testing to be removed. Otherwise, this is not fair treatment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.236.159 (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to nominate them for deletion; can't be fairer than that. Sorry, I missed the ModDB features that include this mod, the first time round, [1] for example. The notability guidelines suggest multiple sources. If ModDB is the only site that has covered this mod extensively then perhaps just redirect to List of Source engine mods. Marasmusine (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails everything.--SkyWalker (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources prove notability.--Sloane (talk) 04:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't believe it's this difficult...I've provided notable sources, references, and information. I've provided more than most Wiki pages require, and yet this Article will be deleted? It saddens me when I see various articles of poor description on here and they get to stay, but a well written one such as NeoTokyo's is to be deleted, despite the previously mentioned facts. It is due to be released this month; if you can at least leave the article until the end of this month, I'm sure you will see how notable it will be. Moddb, Half-Life 2.net, and Fileplanet, are in my opinion, very notable Sources. This is not my opinion alone, as many users would swear by them. This is one of the oldest Source mods in development, and widely recognized by the community. > http://www.halflife2.net/wiki/index.php/Neotokyo > http://halflife2.filefront.com/news/Mod_HQ_Has_InterViewed_Neotokyo_A_HalfLife_2_Mod;24201 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkilbride (talk • contribs) 05:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty you're having is that you appear not having come to terms with the key policies which state that an article content needs to be verifiable through sufficient reliable third-party sources. A source (like moddb or fileplanet) may be notable (in other terms have been covered by other third-party sources) without being considered as reliable. The bar for inclusion is that there must be sufficient independent coverage from said reliable third-party sources. Moddb (much less half-life2.net and fileplanet) do not pass the hurdle to qualify as reliable third-party sources. As a consequence, and until such independent coverage exists, this article can't pass the bar for inclusion. As for the presence of other low quality articles, these are most definitely not a reason to decide an AfD. MLauba (talk) 09:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An example: VG Chartz is notable (even survived an AFD), but its information is not reliable. MuZemike 17:25, 10 March 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.