Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Sonata (4th nomination)

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Star Sonata[edit]

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

This is a procedural nomination following the outcome of This DRV. Article was speedily deleted per CSD G4, but this was overturned on appeal. Participants in the DRV still had substantial concerns with the article, so it was relisted here. As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep WP:NPASR~~ No rationale for deletion, if there was no one willing to do the work to nominate this article for deletion, then there was no need to start the discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 02:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC) striking !vote as there is now a delete !vote. Unscintillating (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
consensus of the DRV was that this discussion should take place. Gnan garra 05:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The procedurally-started discussion ensures that there will be a discussion even if no one is willing to nominate the article for deletion. Why do we need a discussion if there is no one willing to nominate the article for deletion? Unscintillating (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The DRV discussion overturned a speedy deletion as being not valid and consensus was that an AFD was the appropriate action that should have occurred, the creation of this nomination was by the admin who closed that discussion thus the admins declaration that its a procedural nomination is correct and that by nomination "he" isnt expressing any opinion on the matter. Gnan garra 10:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was not so much consensus as it was a courtesy gesture to some senior editors including yourself. The majority did not request the procedural nomination. Why do we need a discussion if there is no one willing nominate the article for deletion? Unscintillating (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep WP:NPASR I'm obviously biased being a developer on that game, but still there is no reasons to delete that article. The page is not blatant advertising and there are plenty of references and the data is accurate. Jey123456 (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for being honest in your association, this is not a vote but rather a discussion on the merrits of the topic in relation to policies set by the community what the community decides it isnt a critical reflection on yourself or the subject Gnan garra 05:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect for the editors above, there clearly is a rationale for deletion, which is that it's of strictly limited notability and the sources leave much to be desired. I don't see how this is a fit subject for an encyclopaedia article and although I agree with Jey123456 that it's not blatant advertising, I do think that the strong motivation to keep this piece is motivated by marketing concerns.—S Marshall T/C 11:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like this comment is straddling the fence with trial balloons. If you think that there is an argument for deletion as you hint, I suggest that you procedurally close this AfD and start an AfD that prepares the community with WP:BEFORE analysis. Unscintillating (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Your position is that there's something the matter with IronGargoyle's nomination. I don't accept that at all. It's well established that deletion review closers can and do nominate material for deletion in this way, and any attempt to do the background reading to which IronGargoyle clearly links in his nomination will show you how WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD have been satisfied.—S Marshall T/C 15:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"No"? "Well established"? Where is the evidence? Here is where the procedural closure was added, there was no community discussion, nor IMO has the history of the procedural nomination since then shown it to be a good idea. It is always the same story–if there is no one willing to do the work to prepare a nomination, there is no need for a discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone doing the work to prepare a nomination.—S Marshall T/C 01:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit comment says "pfff". The nomination you point to is WP:Articles for deletion/Star Sonata (3rd nomination). It took place five weeks after six editors unanimously !voted to keep this article. As such it should have been promptly closed. The nomination states, "the article has not been improved (citation wise) since the last AFD", which is an argument from WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions:
Delete I gave them ~~six months~~ five weeks for someone to add cites, they didn't, and I have lost my patience. – ~~My Way or the Highway~~ Gone Fishing, 01:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
So the second problem with this nomination is that it makes no pretense to being anything other than an argument not to make. As such, third, it neither follows WP:BEFORE nor discusses WP:ATD alternatives to deletion. At the DRV, you state that you want the discussion here to be "a proper discussion", is this nomination the foundation for "a proper discussion" here?. Unscintillating (talk) 03:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've never had much patience with WP:ATA. It's just a laundry list of things some editors think other editors shouldn't be allowed to say in AfD discussions, and its logic is often shaky or nonexistent. Whenever I use a WP:ATA argument, you may safely assume that (1) I'm well aware of WP:ATA and (2) I'm disregarding that essay with all due forethought.
Unscintillating, do you have any objections to deletion that aren't to do with what you see as flawed processes or procedures? Do you have any fresh sources to bring to the debate, for example?—S Marshall T/C 07:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Arguments from authority], this time in the guise of two questions, do not make the case that procedural nominations are "well established", nor IMO are they a substitute for a considered deletion rationale. Unscintillating (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While i would agree with you if the category were not " 2004 video games | Massively multiplayer online role-playing games | Windows games |MMORPGs in space" but they are. Those category are part of the online encyclopedia, we did not create them. So please explain to me how is "Battlestar Galactica Online" more a valid MMORPGs in space than us to only name one (there are many others i could list but i don't want to derail this post). So yea, my point is there are specific games/mmo's category on wikipedia, and i firmly believe any and all games fitting these category should be on there, otherwise it kinda defeat the purpose of being an encyclopedia doesn't it ? . Jey123456 (talk) 12:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Updated the page with the external links mentioned in the DRV. Jey123456 (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that argument. You have a basic expectation that Wikipedia will be consistent and fair, and that if another similar page is allowed, then yours should be. I'm afraid that isn't quite how it is; we discuss things on a case-by-case basis, one at a time, and we simply haven't got to the Battlestar Galactica Online page yet. Now that you mention it, I see that we do need to delete Battlestar Galactica Online, and I'll personally nominate it for deletion in due course. (You can read further information at WP:OCE.)—S Marshall T/C 16:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, i retract that argument, although your argument being that the sources are to be desired, i believe that at the very least gamespy, onrpg, gamezone would be enough independent third party sources to deserve being in the games section of wikipedia. Jey123456 (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP There are enough reliable sources to establish notability. Sure, it's an old game and hard to find new sources, but I think that for what it is we have a good amount. Ng.j (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've made the following improvements to the article's structure and content based on the do's and don'ts given in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines: created Development and Reception sections, removed news & review site links from External links, made player base statistics more accurate and neutral point of view, reworked opening paragraph, updated system requirements, and added references. There's more to be done, but it is a start. I suggest that editors who have not read these guidelines do so before editing the article. Thanar (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after reviewing all the sources I'm not convinvced this meets WP:GNG the sourcing is very weak Gamespy is just a list, onRPG,com doesnt appear to standup as reliable source with editorial oversight the piece linked appears to be a blog with no editorial oversight though it is a comprehensive review, Gametunnel appears to be similar though the review is less comprehensive, gamezone posting is a blog by an annonomouse user. Additional sources are from Star Sonata which are self references, or from Reddit which isnt a reliable source. Gnan garra 05:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Gamezone review was actually written by Matt Eberle. I checked the review link (that I updated a few days ago when I found a non-archived version) and discovered that it omits the reviewer name, giving the impression that it is from the anonymous jkdmedia. I just reverted it to the archived review link, which correctly states that the reviewer is Matt Eberle. Matt Eberle wrote articles for GameZone, co-authored an article with Michael Lafferty, a head reviewer at GameZone, who described Matt as a “Fellow MMOer and GZ [GameZone] writer” here. Sorry about the confusion my bad edit caused. Thanar (talk) 07:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have been a substantial contributor to this article. I think the general notability guideline, whether "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:GNG), has been satisfied by the following 5 references to 3 independent reliable sources:

1. The GameZone pre-release article, review and developer interview provide significant independent coverage of Star Sonata. GameZone has been established as reliable in the field of video gaming per past consensus.

2. The Gamespy List - Gamespy is established as reliable in the field of video gaming per past consensus. I consider Gamespy’s listing to be significant coverage of Star Sonata 2 because the fact of being selected for such a yearly list (rather than, say, a weekly one) is significant in itself, making it "more than a trivial mention" (WP:GNG).

3. The Gametunnel review offers significant independent coverage of Star Sonata. At the time of the Star Sonata review (2005), GameTunnel had Russell Carroll as editor-in-chief (2002-2009). In one of two past discussions of GameTunnel’s reliability, Levi van Tine (t – c) noted that Russell appeared to be “an employee of a game development company, Reflexive Entertainment. Gamasutra and GameSetWatch consider him an authority on indie games, as this interview or this interview would suggest.” Also MLauba suggested GameTunnel as a reliable source because it "runs an annual independent game of the year award which has some recognition in the indie games milieu." Although some GameTunnel writers may have lacked game industry experience/education, the author of the Star Sonata review, Joseph Lieberman, worked in video game marketing. For these reasons of editorial oversight and author expertise (WP:NEWSORG), I consider the GameTunnel review of Star Sonata to be a reliable source.

The shortness of the above list suggests that Star Sonata is only minimally notable. But there is sufficient in-depth information available in these sources to write a Star Sonata article. Finally, I think certain elements of gameplay highlighted by reviewers (programmable slave AI ships and the ability to be crowned Emperor and win the MMO) supports the game's notability. Thanar (talk) 07:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#List the sources listed dont have any community discussion attached to show that the community consensus has established them as reliable specifically the pages states This list is neither complete nor can it be used as definitive proof regarding a listed source's reliability determination. Additionally when you read WP:LOCALCONSENSUS participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply I reviewed each of the sources and found them questionable or outright unreliable in establishing notability. That is the same issue raised in previous AFD's the sources provided are those that have always been used to base notability, the only new source is a blog. Gnan garra 11:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The unanimous decision at AfD 2 and IMO the consensus view from AfD 3 made the community consensus clear that this article didn't have quite enough sourcing in 2008, and that the article should be kept in mainspace for at least six months while a search proceeded. Whether or not a source from 2012 satisfied the intent of 2008, the need for more sourcing is now answered. The G4TV source marked "blog" is from an author identified there as "G4TV Staff", so the article brings with it the reputation and legal responsibility of the organization. As per our article, G4TV is a part of NBCUniversal. Unscintillating (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: This passes WP:GNG but barely. The Gamasutra article in the references (found here) is actually a press release that Gamasutra picked up and put on their website. However, I agree with Thanar's reasoning above for the reliability of the references he cited. I also am not convinced by Gnangarra's reasoning, which was that "I reviewed each of the sources and found them questionable or outright unreliable in establishing notability", as he does not specifically cite why Thanar's reasoning is incorrect. I feel that Gnangarra must not have completely read into the reasoning behind the notability for these websites. The GameZone notability is clearly established here, and I'm swayed by Thanar's arguments about GameTunnel, the one website which I would have to put firmly on the fence. All this said though, this is a minimum, and unreliable references should be cut from the article. Either way though, I !vote for a weak keep. Nomader (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
clearly this here hasnt established anything that is one person listing, no other person reviewed the listing, no context to the list and no discussion by the community. Gnan garra 00:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's enough coverage in reliable, third party sources to meet the WP:GNG. I'll concede it isn't pretty, but there's enough there to work with. Sergecross73 msg me 15:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to pass WP:GNG as far as I can tell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.132.3 (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2012 (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.