Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Isle of Four Winds: Rune War

Add links
Source: 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Isle of Four Winds: Rune War

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

The Isle of Four Winds: Rune War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to have received no significant attention beyond the lone review already given in the article. This review is present in the 35 hits on Google as well[1], but nothing else there seems to be useful to establish notability. Company has no article either, so no obvious redirect target. Fram (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As well as the review mentioned in the article (which can be read on p. 117 here) the game was also reviewed in Strategy Plus magazine. Two substantial reviews in reliable sources for game makes this a pass for WP:NGAME. FOARP (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    2 sources isn't great for WP:N. Please do not cite an essay (NGAME) to support this. --Izno (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I will cite any essay that is relevant - it is for the closer to decide whether they think it persuasive. Two independent sources is evidence that it "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" per WP:GNG and as such this article should be presumed notable. FOARP (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I said "not great", not "not evidence that it exists".

    Why are you adding the confusion by citing an essay? Your argument boils down to WP:GNG, so why not reference the policy/guideline directly that actually supports deletion (or keeping)? The closer can decide if it is persuasive, but the closer can also be reminded that you are citing an essay. So, just don't do it. Save you and the closer the grief of trying to decide whether there is merit. Just as you are allowed to use an essay, I am allowed to call you out for using an essay and choosing not to provide a reference to policy and guidelines to support your case. I did so. --Izno (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Because it also clarifies that there is not a closer subject-specific policy guideline similar to WP:NPOL or WP:NBOOK. It is worth remembering that many of the guidelines began life as simple essays and were adopted as guidelines over time through use and improvement. There is nothing wrong in citing an essay if it is the closest thing to a guideline for the subject matter - no-one is going to be confused by doing so. Many essay-level articles are cited at AFD (to name a few commonly-cited ones: WP:TNT, WP:ALLPLOT, and even WP:BLUDGEON) it is fine to say you disagree with them and that they are not accepted policy or guidelines, but there is nothing wrong with citing them as part of your rationale. WP:GNG is so commonly cited that it seems unnecessary often to cite it - though I note you don't have any firm rebuttal to there being two WP:NEWSORG references giving WP:SIGCOV and thus creating a WP:GNG presumption of notability. FOARP (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can't get past 2 sources, you're probably not in presumed territory yet, even if I take on faith that the two sources are more than a paragraph or a sentence each (i.e. that they meet the requirement for in-depth/significant).

    no-one is going to be confused by doing so is incorrect. People new to Wikipedia are confused by our Byzantine labyrinth all the time, and this is no less true of AFD. I have a strong opinion that we should be simplifying our notability guidelines, and that means reducing the many we have, not encouraging the application of non-guidelines (i.e. adding more). The video game sphere gets/has gotten enough crap from supposed More-Important-Places without adding the bad rationale you supply against deletion with such essay-referencing.

    I am, however, happy to see that Jimmy rustled up a few more sources for use. --Izno (talk) 01:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Two reviews most definitely can be sufficient for a WP:GNG pass and I am disturbed that someone who has voted in so many AFDs doesn’t know this. The standard is “significant coverage in reliable sources”, that is, “sources” plural, including two. Some of the subject-specific guidelines make this explicit by saying “at least two” or “two or more” (see eg WP:NBOOK). FOARP (talk) 07:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (←) doesn’t know this and doesn't (always) agree with it after consideration are not the same. Be careful not to assume my knowledge or lack thereof. The GNG sentence of interest is If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list., but it includes a whole lot more than that, and here I quote the particular bullets of interest (with some eliding):
  • "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. E.g: The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM. and Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.
  • "Sources" ... (In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.) ... There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. ... Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. ...
When qualified as so, 2 sources doesn't make a good case for notability. Other guidelines are immaterial in this case anyway, and I might suggest they're more likely the result of being written by some old guard more interested in ensuring their pet topic is retained than in providing generalizable rules. You'll note that the GNG itself clearly takes no stance. --Izno (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And one more: All of that presumes that you take the stance that industry magazines are sufficiently independent and that the sources provided treat the topic in-depth, the latter of which I granted might be the case and the former of which has a mixed history in almost every industry, no less so in the (video) gaming industry. --Izno (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2020 (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/The_Isle_of_Four_Winds:_Rune_War&oldid=1171532226"