- 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. slakr\ talk / 03:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Elysian Shadows
- Elysian Shadows ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is currently built entirely of primary sources, and a video game reliable sources search for sources that might confer notability upon the topic (or its subtopics such as "Adventures in Video Game Development") reveal only two press releasey blurbs [1] and a whole lot of unedited press releases [2]. As such, the article topic fails the notability guidelines for want of significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) czar ♔ 15:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Delete or Keep Discussion
- Delete as per nom. The article contains a single third party source that is recognised as reliable, but the subject of that reference isn't the game itself, its the YouTube channel that the developers are posting their progress on. The layout and amount of content are great, the problem is the sources. As regards what to do with the article, it's hard to say send it for incubation, because the content first appeared on this user's sandbox but the content was copied from there and created as an article by a separate user, so userfying the page will need a bit of digging to find out who to send it back to. - X201 ( talk) 15:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) X201 ( talk) 15:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Weak delete It's got potential, but it really needs to tone it down. In its current form, it should be deleted under the "fundamental rewrite" clause. -- McDoob AU93 16:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Maybe someday, but right now it's WP:TOOSOON. There's little to no third party sources covering it on detail, so it fails the GNG. Also, it's written like more of a "developer's diary" or "fan's documentation" than an encyclopedia article, so it should really just be started from scratch if/when it meets the GNG someday. Sergecross73 msg me 16:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Many, many sources, but they're all primary or unreliable third-party. The single reliable third-party reference is a Destructoid blog with no actual content for us to use. Woodroar ( talk) 17:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hold On. First of all, I would like to say that I am the original author of the article. This is a reputable game that has been featured on may gaming sites. Apparently I made a mistake citing their official site and interviews a few too many times, but the content may be found on plenty of other gaming sites, including press release converage on notable sites such as GamaSutra. Also, I don't think any of your assessments are quite fair, as much of the content of this article may be seen directly from their YouTube videos. This should not be considered a "primary source," as the videos themselves demonstrate the game, and a portion of this page is dedicated to those videos and the progress the team has demonstrated. They are not a primary source, they are literally the subject of the article... Wait on the deletion and I will add more reputable sources to appease you guys.
Edit: I would also object to this on the grounds of obfuscation and a fundamental philosophical disagreement here. First of all, who is a better source to cite for information regarding a game than the developers themselves? Than video footage literally demonstrating and showing EXACTLY what the article depicts first-hand? Your evangelical quest to only cite other sources will only result in adding an additional layer of bias to the article and separate it even further from the sources, which are the development team and their videos. The article is written in such a manner that every paragraph is verifiable via the AiGD series. So what you're saying is the only "reputable" sources about a game are not the developers themselves, not the gameplay footage, and not the sources that are actually unbiased and most reputable, but opinionated articles from the gaming press and their editors reporting on a source that could have been cited here directly? That's not unbiased encyclopediac information. I created an article about a GAME referencing the ACTUAL GAME, not a hodge-podge of various biased third party sources. Pete Cartier this user's sandbox ( talk) 13:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- They are a
primary source, "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved.". There's nothing wrong with YouTube as a primary source to prove that Charlie Sheen actually said his latest rant, but it needs third party sources to support it as being noteworthy and for it to be interpreted by unconnected parties. As the creators they have an inherent bias to their product, they are also just one single source of information, should we take their word for it or multiple third party sources each with their own viewpoint on it? -
X201 (
talk) 18:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- If you want to start improving the article and adding sources,
by all means do so. If the article transforms into something that fits notability and verifiability and has more third-party sourcing, you'll see people !vote to keep it or even change !votes; I'd be willing to change mine if the content improves, hence my "weak delete" !vote. --
McDoob
AU93 19:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, I'm working on it. Pete Cartier this user's sandbox ( talk) 14:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- If you want to start improving the article and adding sources,
by all means do so. If the article transforms into something that fits notability and verifiability and has more third-party sourcing, you'll see people !vote to keep it or even change !votes; I'd be willing to change mine if the content improves, hence my "weak delete" !vote. --
McDoob
AU93 19:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- They are a
primary source, "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved.". There's nothing wrong with YouTube as a primary source to prove that Charlie Sheen actually said his latest rant, but it needs third party sources to support it as being noteworthy and for it to be interpreted by unconnected parties. As the creators they have an inherent bias to their product, they are also just one single source of information, should we take their word for it or multiple third party sources each with their own viewpoint on it? -
X201 (
talk) 18:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Any Better? I added non-primary sources to at least every major section of the article, from sites like indiegamingmagazine.com, retrogamingmagazine.com, seganerds.com, segabits.com, and rpgwatch.com. The first two are very reputable sources, and SegaNerds and SegaBits are very reputable, highly-esteemed sources on Sega-specific games and homebrew, which Elysian Shadows is classified as. Let me know your feedback, and thank you for working with me. Edit: oops, cited a blogspot. Apologies. Removing. Pete Cartier this user's sandbox ( talk) 13:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- We maintain a list of reliable sources at WP:VG/RS. Many of the aforementioned sources do not meet our editorial standards for inclusion as sources. I started a thread about this on the article's talk page. czar ♔ 20:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Also re: your original comment about "who better than the developers": we're discussing the notability of the article topic itself. Sure, the devs will be the ones releasing the info about the game (and primary sources can be occasionally cited as
self-published sources), but we rely on the reliable secondary sources to be the ones to say whether a topic is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Many pre-release games do not have enough secondary coverage to sustain an article, which is why we wait for the secondary sources to indicate that a topic is covered enough for us to make a decent article about it czar
♔ 20:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, okay. I understand now. My sincerest apologies. I fundamentally misunderstood the importance and goal of the secondary sources, and was battling a straw man as a result of my own ignorance. Thank you guys for the clever analogies and clarification on the matter. I will work to make the article compliant with these standards.
Pete Cartier
this user's sandbox (
talk) 13:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
173.21.146.88 (
talk)
- KEEP I have gone through the list of approved secondary references and have found that a couple of them have covered Elysian Shadows. Now it is just a matter of integrating them into the article effectively. I'll share them once I am done editing.--
Cube b3 (
talk) 03:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- Id be interested to see this list. What is currently in the article, would mostly not meet
WP:RS, and thus, the
WP:GNG.
Sergecross73
msg me 10:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I also did not want to bomb anyone with a list of secondary references that do not meet video game reliable sources.
- Id be interested to see this list. What is currently in the article, would mostly not meet
WP:RS, and thus, the
WP:GNG.
Sergecross73
msg me 10:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- KEEP I have gone through the list of approved secondary references and have found that a couple of them have covered Elysian Shadows. Now it is just a matter of integrating them into the article effectively. I'll share them once I am done editing.--
Cube b3 (
talk) 03:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, okay. I understand now. My sincerest apologies. I fundamentally misunderstood the importance and goal of the secondary sources, and was battling a straw man as a result of my own ignorance. Thank you guys for the clever analogies and clarification on the matter. I will work to make the article compliant with these standards.
Pete Cartier
this user's sandbox (
talk) 13:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
173.21.146.88 (
talk)
I found this website in the list of approved names so I thought I'd share it here.
This one isn't on the list, but it is an indepth interview and touches upon several things covered in the article.
Gamasutra are just sharing the press release would that count?
Should I integrate these references into the article?
What about references from unreliable sources like Gamefaqs, can it be included if the information is intact accurate?-- Cube b3 ( talk) 17:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Additionally, the article has references from Destructoid and now IndieGamingMagazine which are both huge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.146.88 ( talk) 19:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- The Destructoid article has absolutely zero information about the game itself. It's essentially a blog piece about the developers' video diary. And IndieGamingMagazine, also apparently known as Indie Game Magazine doesn't appear reliable in the slightest. The
top results in our custom Google search is about their pay-for-review policies.
Woodroar (
talk) 23:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. Additionally, the Gamasutra source is merely an unchanged, reprinted press release. The opening sentences literally state this. That doesn't count as third party coverage. It's just a copy/paste of the game makers press release. Gamefaqs is unusable - their content violates WP:SPS. Sergecross73 msg me 01:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- The Destructoid article has absolutely zero information about the game itself. It's essentially a blog piece about the developers' video diary. And IndieGamingMagazine, also apparently known as Indie Game Magazine doesn't appear reliable in the slightest. The
top results in our custom Google search is about their pay-for-review policies.
Woodroar (
talk) 23:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Even without those links, the game was covered by Indiegames.com, as an approved source, and the video series was covered by Destructoid as an approved source, which justifies including AiGD in the article... I feel like you guys are being unfair. Those two alone are two huge sources that most indie games on Wikipedia don't have, the project is literally exploding in the press right now and has been covered on dozens of sites, and they have an extremely popular YouTube series with over 9k subs. These guys also were the top rated game on all of reddit for screenshot Saturday three times in a row. CLEARLY the project has a large relevance to the indie gaming scene... Half of the indie games on here THAT HAVE ALREADY LAUNCHED don't have half the press coverage, references, or sources this game has. Furthermore, they signed a publishing deal for the Sega Dreamcast with a reputable publisher and studio, which itself is pretty significant for the project and the history of the Dreamcast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.201.234.1 ( talk) 15:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Our notability requirements call for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", meaning sources must be significant (often referred to as "non-trivial") and reliable/reputable and independent/third-party. Merely being mentioned by Destructoid or Indiegames as in the sources above isn't enough. We're looking for feature articles about the game itself, about its features, about its plot and gameplay, about its development. In many cases, this simply isn't possible until the game is released and even then many games simply don't garner the coverage that we require. Basing our articles on sources is a core content policy at Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but the sources simply aren't there yet. Woodroar ( talk) 19:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - as per nom. 1292simon ( talk) 23:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - per nominator. I also believe this fails notability. United States Man ( talk) 03:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Stop Spamming
I would like to request the fans of Adventures in Game Development to please calm down and stop leaving unsigned comments here, we are trying to discuss an intellectual discussion and find ways to rewrite the article in a way that conforms to Wikipedia standards. I have written most of the indie Dreamcast game articles and it is a process. I am working on it, let me discuss with the admins here and understand how to improve the article.
You are welcomed to share secondary references here with us.
Thank You.-- Cube b3 ( talk) 06:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Identifying secondary references that work
1) I am still a little confused about the Gamasutra article. Yes, they have basically mirrored the press release but shouldn't the fact that a reliable secondary resource acknowledges their press release be enough. If I shared their press release directly from pressrelease.com, it would've been another primary source. GS sharing it makes it a secondary source even if they weren't bothered enough to rewrite it in their own words.
2) I just need an admin approval on the other 2 references from indiegames.com and nichegamer.net; those articles/interviews look good to me, I just want an admin to agree or disagree with me before I edit them into the article?-- Cube b3 ( talk) 06:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- You can use the Gamasutra article as a source (as long as it's not that could cause a WP:NPOV problem) but you can't use it as a source to demonstrate notability, because zero percent of it came from the third party. Sergecross73 msg me 16:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm unfamiliar with those 2 sources. You can run it by WP:VG/S's talk page and see if you can get an endorsement or not. Sergecross73 msg me 16:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- ( edit conflict)
- Primary sources are primary sources, no matter where they are hosted. (See WP:PRIMARY.) Like sources writing about themselves, they are of limited use to editors as they are inherently biased and often require synthesis to draw conclusions. For these and other reasons, primary sources do not "count" towards notability requirements.
- I believe you may misunderstand the role of admins on Wikipedia. An admin is an editor with janitorial powers, nothing more and nothing less. Determinations on source reliability and article content are based on consensus, which admins may contribute to as editors or may use their tools to enforce ( as long as they are not involved in the dispute). Others have mentioned it previously, but I strongly suggest reading Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources and feel free to open a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources if you feel that Niche Gamer should be considered as a reliable source. Based on previous discussion, I doubt that will be the case, as it doesn't appear to have strong editorial policies, a staff of reliable game journalists, and doesn't seem to be discussed much among other reliable sources. Indie Games is generally considered a reliable source, but the article isn't "substantial coverage" as required by WP:GNG and it would almost certainly fail WP:CRYSTALBALL as "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors". Woodroar ( talk) 16:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- @ SergeCross73 given that indie games is already on the list of approved references I will go ahead and integrate it into the article. I have however went ahead and posted the other one on the discussion page.
@ Woodrar: Thank you for the insights, I will continue to search for more references :).-- Cube b3 ( talk) 06:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)-- Cube b3 ( talk) 06:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- 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.