Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LandFort
- 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. – Juliancolton | Talk 18:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
LandFort
 | 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: suspectedcsp |username}}. |
- LandFort (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)
Unremarkable app that does not seem to meet
The article for LandFort is about a new Android game which has been covered by multiple sources.
The "Notability" rule is this:
No inherent notability
"Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance,"
These are the refence links for that article: 1)GameWorld.gr wrote a news item for the game. This is a fact of notability and significance. 2)The game's profile in SlideDB.com . The game has one of the highest ranks in the world (yesterday it was 2nd in ranks) - http://www.slidedb.com/games/landfort 3)A 2nd news item -> http://www.dwrean.net/2015/10/landfort.html . Another fact of notability and significance. 4)Sites MCVUK and Gamasutra, one of the most well-known in the world, did a re-post of a press releases. Wikipedia doesn't have any rule telling that "A press release re-posting is not considered as a reference" User 331dot doesn't reply in numbers to the conversation that has already started. He has refused twice to reply to points 1, 2 and 3, while insisting that a press release re-publishing is not an importance fact. .(Kotsolis (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2015 (GMT+2)).
- I cannot read Greek but from the few snippets of English that I can see, the GameWorld 'story' seems to just be an announcement of the game's release.
- Game profiles don't indicate something notable, they just describe the game.
- Again, from what I can gather it just seems to describe the game itself.
- There are no firm rules here but there are guidelines about what reliable sources are, and the General Notability guidelinementions that press releases are not independent sources of information. They don't establish notability.
- I have refused nothing; but I obviously have not been clear enough. 331dot (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok now you have been clear. This is why the article should remain as it is.
- 1)It's a news item which tells about the game and also 2 updates within the article with 2 videos. Who told you that games that are about to be released don't deserve a place in Wikipedia?
- 2)In which Wikipedia rule does it mention that game profiles in sites like Metacritic, IndieDB, GameRankings etc. "don't indicate something notable"?
- 3)It's a news item for the game. What else do you expect? A review or something? There are no notability rules for posting only reviews
- 4)Notability rules: "For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." The reference 4 says
" Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability." The notability rules clearly say about "press releases". They don't say anything about "Sites posting news items by just copy-pasting a press release. Whether you want it or not, Gamasutra and MCVUK actually did post a news article! But the editors of those sites copy-pasted a press release that was sent to them. It's a news article either way, with no personal editor comment. (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2015 (GMT+2)).
First review has been added, a 8.1/10. Plus 3 more news links. (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2015 (GMT+2)).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Article topic lacks ping}} me. czar 02:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)]
@
Where exactly did you see "blogs"? I see only websites. Where exactly does Wikipedia define which sites are reliable and which are not? Is there a meter based in Google Analytics, active website years or anything similar? I demand a clear reply. I contribute to Wikipedia for years. If you don't provide the EXACT paragraph of Wikipedia rules which define specific rules about the "reputation" of websites you mentioned (not blogs, because you can't define the difference between a blog and a website) this conversation will be forwarded to all gaming websites and developer forums via mass email, as well as Reddit and various YouTubers. It's already been saved. You are not behaving towards a "Free Encyclopedia" rule, but towards a "Strictly controlled Encyclopedia" where each moderator behaves with the way that he wants. So now that you've learned that those 4 are websites and not blogs, and that they've written articles/reviews and not redirection of press releases, go ahead and prove yourself. (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2015 (GMT+2)). Kotsolis (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Freedom without license. The Free Encyclopedia, in this case, doesn't mean "do as you please"—there are many things WP:VG/RS. I could potentially see a case for Gameworld and Techgear, but Droid Gamers and Cyprus Gamers are very clearly hobbyist sites run by hobbyists. As for the rest, I don't see what you intend to accomplish by making threats. I actually took the time to link out my entire rationale if one takes the time to read it. Speaking of policy, our Conflict of interest policy asks that contributors declare any affiliation with the subject on the article's talk page. Since you listed yourself as the author of the game's logo, it would follow that you have some connection with the subject. czar 16:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)]
- Freedom without license. The Free Encyclopedia, in this case, doesn't mean "do as you please"—there are many things
@
- Droid Gamers's about page has no editorial policy, no experience in journalism, and no external reputation for reliability—clear as day. No one said anything about a minimum number of refs. You could argue for two, but there's no way Droid Gamers and Cyprus Gamers are reliable. There's plainly not enough content to write a full article on this subject.
You are clearly killing indie game development
—I have written dozens of articles on indie games so spare me the personal attacks. In fact, I have nothing else to add here unless there are other sources. czar 19:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)- Wikipedia is not here to promote indie gaming or any other cause or subject. We deal in what is notable. If the image is not yours, you will need to either obtain permission for it to be used or it will need to be deleted.(I see it is already tagged for deletion on Commons) Stating that others are 'acting on behalf' of 'big developers' requires evidence; if you have none, please retract your statement. As I indicated, canvassing for support for your position is generally frowned upon and is usually discounted in discussions like this. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)]
- Wikipedia is not here to
- Droid Gamers's about page has no editorial policy, no experience in journalism, and no external reputation for reliability—clear as day. No one said anything about a minimum number of refs. You could argue for two, but there's no way Droid Gamers and Cyprus Gamers are reliable. There's plainly not enough content to write a full article on this subject.
@
So, both MCVUK and Gamasutra that redirected Landfort's press releases are valid references as well. Even SlideDB. This makes a total of more than 5-6 references, which makes this game profile notable.
@331dot: "It would follow that you have some connection with the subject". Since you first said that Iam connected with the game Iam also implying the same for you. Fair and simple. If you "retract your statement" -as you said it first- I will rectract it too. Crystal clean. You are not talking to a 10 year old kid so don't threaten me.(talk) 22:25, 1 November 2015 (GMT+2)).
- @Kotsolis: This combative attitude you have isn't helping your case. It was reasonable to think that since you uploaded the game's image and said it was yours, that you were associated with the game. You say you are not, so there isn't an issue. On what do you base the claim that we are working for big developers, other than you disagreeing with what we are saying? 331dot (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- If you want to run Droid Gamers past other editors, try basic notability policy. czar 20:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)]
@
Four are fairly enough. And again, there are no notability guides about the EXACT number of postings that should count as a notability, so don't waste your time on trying to prove me the notability rating of the product. Because I can post you hundreads of Android or iOS games that should be deleted because they had only 1-2 notable references. (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2015 (GMT+2)). @331dot: Oh and about the logo, I have already asked for a .pdf usage of the game's logo from the developer. If they agree I just don't know where to put that .pdf in Wikipedia images.
And finally, I was never pinged about the Wikimedia image that I uploaded! So here is the developer's .pdf for allowing me to publish it : 4shared.com/office/hjFeX2xuce/uthorization.html
@
LandFort forum discussion added. A 5th reliable source of independent discussion between users. (talk) 02:35, 2 November 2015 (GMT+2)).
- A discussion forum is not a reliable source; and frankly you don't seem to be understanding what one is. 331dot (talk) 02:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
If you have understood what is a reliable source then why don't you recognize 4 reliable sources already mentioned? And why don't you send me the exact paragraph where wikipedia mentions that forum topic discussion is not a reliable source? (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2015 (GMT+2)).
- I'm not going to repeat what the other user has said about the sources already provided. Please see does not have hard and fast rules about everything. Consensus is currently that such content is not a reliable source; you can certainly attempt to persuade the Wikipedia community that it is, but that seems unlikely to change. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)]
- I have read all the guides. Both you and the user that wrote before can't prove in any way, that those 4 sources are not valid. Actually all 4 of them are valid, and 4 sources are enough for a video game to be listed. There are no rules and limits about a "specific number of references". So I expect that admins will remove the Deletion tag. We' lost enough hours talking while we should all be working. I gave you an example of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bears_vs._Art which had only 2 reference links and you deleted the profile, without warning the author. I can post you hundreads of games that have 2 or 3 reference links. Are you going to delete them as well? Instead of posting links which I already read, either find one Wikipedia rule which says "More than 4 references" or Remove the "Delete" tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotsolis (talk • contribs) 13:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Logo is re-uploaded as I have official license to use it from developer George Mataragas - [email protected] ! Licence link - 4shared.com/office/hjFeX2xuce/uthorization.html (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2015 (GMT+2)).
- Delete - per Czar's assertions. Not enough significant coverage in sources that Wikipedia/WP:VG/S considers to be reliable. Sergecross73 msg me 19:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)]
- Delete - per nom. Nothing on searches turned up enough to show it meets notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 13:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Of the cited sources, publishers WP:NSOFT. Wikipedia is not for advertising, marketing, or public relations. Worldbruce (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)]
- Delete Fails WP:GNG --The1337gamer (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2015 (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.