Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Rainfall

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 to delete~~Keep (non-admin closure). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change suggested made by User:SudoGhost

Operation Rainfall

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

Questionable encyclopedic nature/notability Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Question about Unsuccessful Fan Petitions. Crabbattler (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has received substantial, non-trivial coverage from many reliable, third party references. Sergecross73 msg me 20:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Brief coverage in trade publications alone is not an indicator of significant coverage. If mainstream news sources were covering it, then maybe passing mention would be enough, but what we have is video game news sites releasing brief statements that say the petition exists. While this does qualify as "coverage," the fact that none of these news sites have provided many details or engaged in in-depth analysis of the campaign, attempted to place the campaign within a larger context, or provided ongoing updates as to its progress means that this coverage is in no way "significant." If it is barely worth a mention in the gaming press and not worth any mention by the mainstream press, then it does not deserve an article on wikipedia. Indrian (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Define "barely". It was covered by virtually every video game site out there... Sergecross73 msg me 21:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every game news site mentioned it. Significant coverage is defined by depth not just by breadth. If every game site mentions it exactly once in essentially the same news cycle, that indicates no depth of coverage. Show me the gaming news sites that have provided "significant" coverage. That means more than just a single article that merely states a petition exists. Do that, and I will probably change my opinion. Indrian (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And how many games in general are 'covered by the mainstream press'? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very few, which is why that is not on its own an indicator of what should be covered. If it had been covered by the mainstream press in passing, that would probably assert notability all on its own precisely because such coverage is so rare. Also, if it had been covered in depth by the trade press that would also be indicative of significant coverage. I can see how my original wording above would lead you to believe that I was hinging the entire argument on mainstream press coverage, however, so I have modified the language slightly to make my position more clear. Indrian (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to touch on this as well. Would we delete a new "Mario" game article that was properly sourced by sites like IGN until the NYTimes picks up the story? That'd be silly. It needs reliable sources, doesn't matter the industry or subjective measure of "mainstream". Sergecross73 msg me 22:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it needs significant coverage in reliable sources. An important distinction. No one is questioning the reliability of the trade press. Also, I am not using "mainstream" in a subjective sense, but rather in the sense of a publication intended for a general audience as opposed to the trade press, which only covers a particular topic or industry. Indrian (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What type of coverage are you speaking of then? Gamespot, IGN, Joystiq, Silicon Era, all these sources, deemed reliable by wikiproject video games, have had article dedicated completely to the subject. Can you point me in the direction of this standard of "significance" you keep refering to? Sergecross73 msg me 19:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Sudo has kindly provided a definition of significant as it applies in the wikipedia context, and I have readily admitted that the article does, in fact, meet the requirement. I think wikipedia's definition is too broad, but I have no plans to argue against an actual policy definition. I no longer consider lack of significant coverage a grounds for deletion of this article, though I reserve the right to look for some other violation. I have not edited my original post, but the closing admin will read every comment and will see that my views have changed on the matter. Indrian (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) –MuZemike 21:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sergecross73. Gaming articles only have gaming sources does not mean non-notable Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, this argument is not being made so your comment is as bizarre as it is irrelevant. The issues is whether there has been significant coverage or not. All of this is made perfectly clear above, so your willful misreading of the issue is not helpful. Indrian (talk) 02:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful with what you accuse others of. It's uncalled for, and won't help you. - Sudo Ghost 04:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by it. Too many times in wikipedia I see people pulling individual statements out of larger arguments and attempting to obfuscate the main point by only addressing them. This is in stark contrast to your own arguments below, which are cogent and relevant. I'll debate policy all day and respect differing opinions that are rooted in policy, but I will not respect attempts like the one above to make the argument about something it is not. Indrian (talk) 04:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - References such as this and this establish significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Thus, the article seems to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. Despite Indrian's well presented delete argument above, Wikipedia's definition of significant coverage is different than the meaning Indrian attributes to it. As per WP:GNG: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. While the article may or may not pass Indrian's definition of "significant" as per above, it does pass Wikipedia's definition. - SudoGhost 04:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When you put it like that, I have to admit you are right. I will take some time to look through some other policies to see if it might offend them, but I am convinced that this satisfies the "significant coverage" requirement as defined in wikipedia policy. Indrian (talk) 04:46, 10 September 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.