Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SCP - Secret Laboratory
- 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 no consensus. I'm not seeing a consensus to delete right now but experience shows that if better sourcing is not found then the discussion may well go delete at a later relist
Spartaz Humbug! 06:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
]
SCP - Secret Laboratory
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
The article does not have any sources. I've done a google check, and there is some coverage of the game on YouTube and Steam. Nothing by way of reliable, independent sources and therefore
WP:GNG fail. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
]
- Thanks to Spirit of Eagle for unearthing a couple of sources on the subject. The Screen Rant article certainly is substantial coverage. I am not sure, however, if Screen Rant is a reliable source. Even when given the benefit of the doubt, we still do not have the coverage in multiple reliable sources, which is called for in WP:GNG. I think it would be fair to ask @Paul Carpenter:, @LewisMCYoutube: and @Zxcvbnm: whether they want to reconsider their !votes. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)]
- @Modussiccandi: sorry but looking at the article right now all the references are empty and nothing points to ScreenRant. I assume this was just a mistake on someone's part. If the sources could be actually placed into the article (or even placed here), then sure, I'd reconsider. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ah wait, I see them at the bottom of this page now, I'm now neutral on this one. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 09:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am also neutral at this time. LewisMCYoutube (talk) 11:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks to Spirit of Eagle for unearthing a couple of sources on the subject. The Screen Rant article certainly is substantial coverage. I am not sure, however, if Screen Rant is a reliable source. Even when given the benefit of the doubt, we still do not have the coverage in multiple reliable sources, which is called for in
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete The article does not contain sources demonstrating notability, and could find none out there either.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Delete, no coverage in reliable sources LewisMCYoutube (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)Delete as there's not a claim to notability, sourced or otherwise. --Paul Carpenter (talk)
10:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Don't Delete There is an official wiki made by the developers and a website that can be used for sourcing so I say don't delete. And I am fixing the article now. --talk) 17:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)]
- Thanks, WP:GNG) from the subject to prove it merits inclusion in Wikipedia. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)]
- wait but If I make I guide on steam can I cite that? --talk) 17:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)]
- Thanks,
- Look so the page for verafibiltty says that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". The developer is the most expert on the subject matter because they are the ones you produce it, also anyone can prove the information by playing the game. There are many steam guides that verify the content on the wiki so I think the offical wiki is a good source.
--
talk) 17:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
]
- WP:GNG. What Wikipedia is looking for are reputable, third-party source, e.g. a review of the game in a reputable newspaper. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)]
- Ok, I am not a developer of the game I just play the game, and I don't want to see the article deleted and I am interested in making a great article. Also the official wiki is a wiki and is not an opinionated source though the offical website and steam is. --talk) 19:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)]
- My apologies, I misunderstood you there. I don't think the official wiki should be viewed as a reliable source because it can be edited by anybody. It would be easy for me to create an account on that website and insert false information. For these reasons Wikipedia itself is not suitable for use as source in Wikipedia articles. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)]
- But what if I prove everything I add to the article in the game and document it using screen recording? --talk) 20:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)]
- If you made those recordings yourself, that would be original research which should not appear in articles per WP:ORIGINAL. Look, the point is that the article should be built from reliable, independent, secondary sources. In other words, we need something from a good, published source (e.g. The Guardian, The New York Times etc.) Modussiccandi (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)]
- If you made those recordings yourself, that would be original research which should not appear in articles per
- But what if I prove everything I add to the article in the game and document it using screen recording? --
- My apologies, I misunderstood you there. I don't think the official wiki should be viewed as a reliable source because it can be edited by anybody. It would be easy for me to create an account on that website and insert false information. For these reasons Wikipedia itself is
- Ok, I am not a developer of the game I just play the game, and I don't want to see the article deleted and I am interested in making a great article. Also the official wiki is a wiki and is not an opinionated source though the offical website and steam is. --
- Hello, I surrender; go delete the page, I don't care, even though you can easily prove every thing I could put on the page "it is not fit for wikipedia because it is orignal research". It just seems like spilting hairs to me, consider this example: The fact that the sky is blue is not internationally known but everyone who is told that the sky is blue can easily prove it, but no one can publish it on wikipedia because no "reputable source" has published it. It just seems like I just need to call the New York Times and tell them hey, can you publish a article that is a info dump on this game because if you do then I can publish it on wikipedia, see how stupid that is, yeah. You can delete the article but I will make a well fleshed out article on my sandbox. --talk) 20:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)]
- Yes, the sky being blue technically doesn't really need a reliable source to confirm it, but that has no bearing on this. Information on a video game most definitely should be confirmed by a reliable source. Unlike the sky being blue, it can potentially be wrong if you just do your own personal investigation on it because other people would need to play the game to confirm it.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, I surrender; go delete the page, I don't care, even though you can easily prove every thing I could put on the page "it is not fit for wikipedia because it is orignal research". It just seems like spilting hairs to me, consider this example: The fact that the sky is blue is not internationally known but everyone who is told that the sky is blue can easily prove it, but no one can publish it on wikipedia because no "reputable source" has published it. It just seems like I just need to call the New York Times and tell them hey, can you publish a article that is a info dump on this game because if you do then I can publish it on wikipedia, see how stupid that is, yeah. You can delete the article but I will make a well fleshed out article on my sandbox. --
- Weak Keep (see second paragraph for keep vote) The nominator appears to have only done a generic Google search. Using Google News I found a few additional sources, specifically Screen Rant (a pop culture website that does employ several editors) and several articles by Game Tyrant (such as this one). I'm not particularly convinced that Game Tyrant is reliable (its not listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources nor was I able to find any information on the website's/ writer's qualifications) nor am I making a keep vote at this point. However, I think the discussion so far has failed to adequately analyze the available sources. While notability is still in doubt, this is not a "there are no sources whatsoever" type article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Screen Rant is a decent enough source (based on the link above, they maintain policies on subjects such as fact checking, corrections, ethics, etc. and their editorial team has some impressive credentials). Oxen Games and Tyrant Games are also decent sources for the “reception” section. Sourcing is honestly still a bit sparse and I would like to see more coverage from major gaming sources, but in the end I think there is just enough coverage to push this article over the gng line. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per the sources by Spirit of Eagle. Screen rant is a reliable source for this and Game Tyrant appears to segregate native advertising from their editorial reviews. I was also able to find this review which appears to be done by professional reviewers with editorial oversight. W42 18:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Keep per the sources found. A lot of this is still unreferenced, leaving very little referenced material that will need to be removed. A merge might make sense if a target could be found. Jontesta (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2020 (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.