Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AirAttack 2

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.

AirAttack 2

AirAttack 2 (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)

Article topic lacks

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 03:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree I also could not find any reputable sources other than the app store listing. I don't think that in and of itself warrants an article. Ke5crz (talk) 03:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Reviews are not the only material which can show notability; there are a solid 4 sources (noting all are from the same website) which include development, pre-release information, and etc. Keep. --Izno (talk) 11:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  That said, a combined article with the first game may be desirable, since there are further hits for that game as well. --Izno (talk) 11:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage generally means not coming from the same source czar 09:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Also where are these four links? czar 17:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Both TouchArcade and Pocket Gamer wrote reviews for the game. And both this and this are quite in-depth talking about the game's gameplay. This should pass the notability guideline, though the article is in terrible shape.
  talk) 08:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep The sources provided above suggest that this meets GNG; or am I missing something? Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The PocketGamer and TouchArcade group of sources are enough to scrape by the bottom of the
  WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 17:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per above and additional sources I found: 1 (2 and 3 same?) 4 Adam9007 (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Since when are two reviews from mobile-only sites enough for the
  general notability guideline? We've always used three as a hard floor, and even then, that's a minimum—topics are supposed to assert some actual "notability"... What kind of article are we going to write with Adrian's four links? Adam's two links, by the way, are press releases. czar 13:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  To which policy or guideline do you refer when you use the phrase "hard floor"? You might want to review your own link to the GNG; "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected" (emphasis mine) and subsequently a really large and long note about possible inclusion in the context of another article. As I suggested above, perhaps there should be a series article without individual games articles, since I found results for AirAttack as well as AirAttack 2 on the VG/RS engine. --Izno (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does them being mobile-only matter? Are they secondary sources? Yes. Are they reliable? Most probably. By that logic, PlayStation or Xbox magazines don't count towards notability, as they only cover their respective platforms. Adam9007 (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're adding layers of requirements that don't exist. Technically, the only requirement is multiple third party reliable sources that cover significant coverage. Multiple equals 2. It's fine to have personal standards (I usually don't write or defend articles without 4 or 5 sources), but technically 2 mobile websites writing dedicated reviews cut it. There's other issues with your reasoning as well. (PoketGamer isn't "mobile-only", as it covers

handheld gaming as well, Touch Arcade writing up a detailed preview, and then a detailed review, counts as 2 sources towards meeting the GNG, not one just because they came from the same website, etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

@Sergecross73: I think he was referring to the sources I found, not PocketGamer or Touch Arcade. Adam9007 (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay, when he mentioned "2 reviews", I wasn't sure if he was talking about the 2 you mentioned, or the 2 I mentioned, since your rationale also had a "per above" comment, and I had commented directly above you. Regardless, it doesn't change much about my comment, other than maybe I didn't need to clarify that PocketGamer wasn't a mobile-gaming-only website. Sergecross73 msg me 18:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - For the record, here's a list of sources, all in one place, that cover the subject in significant detail (most dedicating entire articles to it), and are definitely not press releases:

1. http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/iPad/AirAttack+2/review.asp?c=68534
2. http://toucharcade.com/2015/12/01/airattack-2-trailer/
3. http://toucharcade.com/2015/12/18/airattack-2-review/
4. http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/iPad/AirAttack+2/news.asp?c=70259
5. http://toucharcade.com/2015/12/11/toucharcade-game-of-the-week-airattack-2/
6. http://toucharcade.com/2015/12/07/airattack-2-released/

And those are just the ones that have a clear consensus for being reliable from

WP:VG/S. There's coverage in some other sources I'm less familiar with as well. (For example - http://www.mymac.com/2016/01/air-attack-2-for-ios-review/ - I'm not familiar with them, but they've been around for 20 years and wrote a detailed review.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

There are two reviews. The Pocket Gamer news article adds no new information—it's about a sale. The TouchArcade news articles are longer but... they're all from the same source. There's nothing inherently wrong with the sites, but when establishing notability for the topic (and

significant coverage in particular), we've always aimed for more than two reviews and wider coverage than multiple posts from the same niche/site. Izno, the number three is, in itself, arbitrary because the policy is left flexible, but that doesn't mean that there hasn't been a de facto standard. The underlying question is whether you can write a balanced article using these six sources, and if four are from the same source, we hardly have enough variance to give a rounded perspective on the topic. (This is also the kind of inside baseball that gives WikiProjects a bad rap—if any sort of AfD regular outside the games domain saw these six sources, they would call this a merge candidate at best, but lately AfD has been the luck of the draw...) There's also the difference between independent notability and noteworthiness. When there is substantial coverage on a topic but it's weak in any number of areas, it's often a better candidate for merger into some parent article than existing on its own in a perpetually unfinished article. For example, you might only have a paragraph or two of gameplay and reception in the current sources, but it would be a good fit if combined with the AirAttack reviews to separate sections on a combined page—a more suitable scope for the two. czar 19:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm a little unsure, but you seem to be indicating a tentative support for an article on AirAttack, covering this article's material as well as the first game's material, as I suggested. Is that the case? --Izno (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(

WP:GNG in the barest form here, and we have. A handful of reviews and previews are enough to write up at least a good stub article. I've done it before with less (which I'll do here if its necessary to save the article, though right now, that doesn't seem to be the case.) And say what you will about "reputations", but WP:VG does pretty good about having active, relevant discussions at least. The other field I frequently, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs, has far less active discussion. I mean, especially the bottom half of their current list. At least we're discussing and coming to active consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 20:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Izno, yes, there is certainly enough coverage between what I linked for AirAttack and what has been linked for AirAttack 2. My only question has been of threshold. For some context, look at either my talk page messages from @DGG asserting that a handful of full book reviews aren't enough to justify a standalone article, or @KaisaL's treatment of niche sources as the sole source of notability when trying to bring some sanity to our eSports articles. I'm not talking down on WPVG—it's just worth acknowledging that our discussions can be bubbles when they don't have outside participation and that two reviews + news from the same source is very weak justification/coverage for keeping a standalone article, if it's even justification at all. Notability, in the end, is supposed to be a marker of a topic's standout significance. czar 03:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the book reviews. One major book review can be enough for notability, if published in a source which is sufficiently discriminating. Any number of mere notices in indiscriminate sources are not.

But the other consideration for separate articles is the relationship of the work. There's generally no point in writing a separate article for a sequel or works in a series, unless each work is very important, because anyone who would be interested in one is likely to be interested in the other. This has nothing to do with notability, but to appropriate coverage and proper organization. To quote from WP:N, the section on Do related topics provide needed context? DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]