This is a report about articles related to this project in Wikipedia workflows. It contains all articles in workflows which are tagged with {{ WikiProject Video games}} on their talk page. See User:B. Wolterding/Article alerts for details.
The following workflows are covered in this report. (Not necessarily all of them have active items, though.)
The result was delete. I have counted "transwiki" as "delete" for the purpose of this closure as anyone !voting to transwiki (other than Super Shy Guy Bros.) implicitly does not want the article on Wikipedia. If anyone actually wants the article content for the purpose of a transwiki, feel free to drop me a line. Stifle ( talk) 08:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what the purpose of this list is. Much of it is a horribly sourced fork of Video_game_culture#Slang_and_terminology, and doesn't even cover exclusive slang. We aren't a dictionary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 16:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
The result was keep (non-admin closure). Nomination withdrawn. Another reason why AfD should be "articles for discussion" and not "deletion." MuZemike ( talk) 06:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
TTN ( talk · contribs) recently replaced all content on this page with a redirect to Killer7 without anything resembling a discussion prior. I honestly have no opinion on the fate of this content, but replacing a whole page with a redirect is akin to a unilateral deletion. I brought it here for the sake of process and have no opinion myself. JuJube ( talk) 02:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The result was delete. ff m 18:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Article has already been deleted once, no changes have been made to the article since being restored, notability is unclear. HollyHuntaway ( talk) 23:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The result was Unanimous Keep. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 11:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
non-notable games studio which has released one game which itself isn't particularly notable yet (and may never actually be notable) the studio fails WP:CORP, WP:V, and WP:RS. Speedy declined on the basis that someone has created an article for the game and apparently that counts as an assertion of importance/significance for the company Jasynnash2 ( talk) 15:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Jasynnash2 ( talk) 15:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 07:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Non-notable online game, created by a company whose Wikipedia page has been deleted on grounds of... notability. Delete. Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 22:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Also nominating
Good You went to the website. You get a cookie!
If you can pull wikipedia rules out for your own selfish crap, I could easily say that the reason for deletion was pure bias, and that you are in violation of rules. And no, i'm not taking the time anymore to properly clean up my posts with fancy formatting. You can do it if you want uber censorship power, because that is what wikipedia is apparently about. If I was an admin, I could pull this crap on something you worked hard on. But, alas, I'm not an abusive admin. Stop YOUR bias, because if anybody contributes to the page, its because they want to, not because i told them. --
Techdude300 (
talk) 00:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Fine, delete the page, on one condition. YOU make an article, or find somebody who will, that fairly represents the game and uses your "quality" standards. Better get started, because I won't shut up about it until it's done. Good Luck! =)--
Techdude300 (
talk) 00:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I find some better sources and work really hard on this. Thanks for the input (sorry I can't log in and officialy sign this at school) -Techdude300 —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
216.48.138.28 (
talk) 17:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The result was keep. Stifle ( talk) 08:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Nothing to show this is a notable software game. There's a link to the apple website, and a link to a cheatcode website, neither of which grant notability. seresin ( ¡? ) 19:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 15:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Non-notable game, no references from reliable, third-party published sources, very crufty. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Wyatt Riot ( talk) 09:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
This opinion seems very euro/American culture centric. This game is quite notable. I live in S. Korea, a country where computer games are played competitively on TV, in prime time, 7 days a week. This is the 2nd most popular game in the country behind Star Craft. It's unique free distribution system requiring government data is also a noteworthy contrast to standard games. The artical has major needs of revision and new sources, it's true, but it should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.72.229.46 ( talk) 08:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The result was delete. kur ykh 01:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 ( talk) 01:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:43, 16 October 2008 [14].
This is an unreleased video game that has been canceled. I asked several weeks ago if it was okay to submit it to FAC, and
I was told that it is acceptable.
David Fuchs has
taken a look at the images, while
Juliancolton has
taken a look at the sources. In addition to S@bre and myself, the article has been copyedited by
Durova,
GrahamColm, and
David Fuchs.
Gary King (
talk) 18:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note that a large number of the sources are from Blizzard, the developer of the game, so they need to be checked for unintentional bias. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Giggy's comments
Giggy ( talk) 07:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
User:Randomran's comments:
Otherwise, the prose is strong -- it seems like the lead was the main issue. The research appears to check out, and the images have good fair use rationales. The article is very comprehensive, which can be tough when talking about an unreleased game. If you fixed these few statements (not necessarily in the way I suggested), you would have my support. Randomran ( talk) 18:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Support: Was already close to featured quality, and my concerns have been addressed. You guys are gonna have a lot of fun re-writing this if they ever resume development and release it. Randomran ( talk) 20:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:22, 13 October 2008 [15].
Bringing this video game article to FA. On the shorter side, but it is one of those games that got some but not a lot of attention despite the critical reception for it. I've double checked prose/references/images, and had a few others copyedit on the prose.
I will note (knowing their reliability will likely be questioned) on two of the references used: MoDojo is under Federated Media Publishing ( website), while blog-style posts, the article is an interview with the game's producer. SegaNerds is also a blog-style source under B5Media ( website), but also, the article used here is a interview with the same person. -- MASEM 22:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
-- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 22:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Redundancies a problem. And 1a more generally.
Is Deckiller around? He might know the right person to come afresh to this and massage the prose. Try reading this and undertaking the associated exercises; I usually shy from promoting my own stuff, but here I think you'd benefit from developing a "radar". Tony (talk) 10:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Comments
Support. Giggy ( talk) 07:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Comments: Support:
Okay, generally a decent article. I'll give it another look once the amendments are made. Ashnard Talk Contribs 08:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
previous FAR (11:06, 9 October 2008)
The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 20:53, 22 November 2008 [16].
-- Goodraise ( talk) 10:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Support My issues were resolved from the previous FLC, and as long as the table issue is resolved, this list is ready for promotion. Dabomb87 ( talk) 05:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Support: The list has definitely improved and my main concerns have been addressed. Though I think the article still has some minor room for improvement here and there. But I still believe it meets criteria in its current form. Good job. ( Guyinblack25 talk 16:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC))
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this game revolutionized gaming as did Guitar Hero, but this time they added drums, vocals, rythym and bass. Also this game is becoming a world wide hit. Please look over my article about it and give me as much feedback as you can. I want this article to give the game the credit it deserves.
Thanks,
GamerPro64 (
talk) 00:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Ynhockey: