Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 September 5

WP:NACD. – T. Canens (talk) 03:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Article nominated for lack of notability. After discussion, there appeared to be two sources with some level of significant coverage, a magazine that reviewed the game (with unknown reliability) and a reliable Australian magazine that that included a demo and some coverage of a early version of the game. Although the Keeps outweigh the deletes (which was the user's reason that closed the AfD when I discussed it with him) many of the keeps have been based upon poor reasoning. I think it's reasonable to say that there isn't a clear consensus yet. 31.220.203.74 (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the closer, if the community believed that I have acted poorly or closed improperly, I will voluntarily step down from my position.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have no more of that kind of talk. Anything worth doing has a learning curve and nothing would get done unless editors roll up their sleeves and do so. What's 'right' is subjective. Someone another 16:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the "keep" (and I would have slightly raised an eyebrow at "no consensus"). It seems to me the discussion was well-attended and far more thoughtful than most AfDs. I do not see poor reasoning although there were quite a lot of rather hasty comments that were later withdrawn. The article is pretty well written and referenced so, since people on the whole seem to think it probably establishes notability, I do not see any benefit at all in deleting it or even reopening the AfD. I have no worry over the close or the closer's remarks. Thincat (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Sorry if I wasn't clear in what I meant by that, I'll attempt to clarify. It seemed like reasoning included the
  'other stuff exists' argument. An early keep's argument was based on "at least six" independent sources, where most of the sources failed to provide significant coverage or were demonstratably reliable. Another keep referred to three sources, two of which were the same, and another was a fansite. Another keep used the argument that it had been featured on an official website and had a certain number of downloads in a month. These appeared to be his reasons tipping him to "weak keep". These were demonstrably untrue though. That's not including the leaning keep that began to back down, or the weak keep comment that based on there being three reliable sources (one of the those didn't have significant coverage, the other hasn't yet been shown to be reliable). Considering those arguments (flawed in logic or fact), I don't think there's cause supporting an eyebrow raise if that was considered "no consensus". 31.220.203.74 (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - Just pointing out that from what I can see in the AfD (I can't speak for comments that were withdrawn), the "other stuff exists" argument that was used was not used in a way that suggested that the article should be kept because the subject is as notable as a similar article, but rather was arguing that similar content on Wikipedia (freeware/RPG Maker games) has a similar level of coverage, and that the article should be kept to maintain consistency. I did not once see a "this game is more famous than x so it should stay" comment (though please correct me if I missed one) and these arguments simply appeared to be along the lines of "x should be kept because [similar content] has a similar level of coverage" - if you check the
    'other stuff exists' page, this is deemed a perfectly valid point to raise, as Wikipedia should strive for consistency with regards to similar content/subject matter. 128.184.132.38 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.184.132.38 (talk) 04:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The article creator commented on the similar sources are present in other articles, and that's why they created this article. However, many of the sources being discussed were unreliable and / or lacked significant coverage. Another user pointed out that that could mean those other games have problems with notability, "then that's not a reason to keep this one, it's a reason to nominate them for deletion, too." I understand your point of promoting consistency across pages, but I don't think it's "perfectly valid" to do so in this case, when the problem was the quality of sources being used to establish notability. 31.220.203.74 (talk) 10:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse I am not familiar with the sources cited in the other articles that were mentioned but, given that Wikipedia does not have specific guidelines for RPG Maker/fangames to refer to (as these types of games are considered quite a different animal in gaming journalism and are more akin to mods than actual games), using similar articles as a guideline, as well as the user pointing out that other articles on similar types of games citing similar types of sources is not prohibited, whether or not each of the other articles is notable. If it is deemed that several of them are notable with similar sources then, for consistency, this article must be as well. Likewise, if those other articles fail to establish notability, consistency would also deem this one to be non-notable. Taking your comments in good faith, and seeing as how you have responded directly to most participants of the AfD, I believe that you care strongly about the outcome of this debate, but I personally don't think that what you are proposing will change anything when the arguments in the AfD already addressed all angles of the nomination and was deemed good enough to allow the article to remain on Wikipedia. I'm sorry, and I wish you better luck with your next nomination. Later edit: Echoing the sentiments of others commenting below me, I also felt that this article is well written and, for what it is, informative and of interest to some people (those who are in the indie game/fangame community) and it would be a shame to delete it. 139.168.1.162 (talk) 11:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
    That logic, as you've put it, is fine. I completely agree with that. I care that there is an appropriate, logical, and fair outcome, more than what the outcome is. 31.220.203.74 (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The article seems well written, there does also seem to be quite a bit of coverage concerning the game (though admittedly not all of the sources areverified as reliable) however Googling the game does show that it appears to be pretty popular and not just some no-name RPG Maker game, with lots of external coverage outside of the RPG Maker websites and the author's blog posts. The AfD for the most part was well discussed and argued better than most. Some of the "Keep" posts did make a few hasty comments or irrelevant arguments, but these seem to have been withdrawn later, and pretty much all angles were commented on and discussed. To me, it looks like there was a slight consensus leaning towards Keep (or at least a considerable opposition to "Delete", suggesting that deleting this page could be controversial), so that's good enough for me, and I support the closing user's rationale. Subject of the article could get even more coverage in the future what with the author supposedly developing a sequel (which, according to posts on his Facebook and Twitter may be for commercial release), so why not wait and see what happens? In either case, I don't see any benefit in deleting it. 128.184.132.38
Endorse. By convention, DRV will not overturn a "keep" to a "no consensus" because it makes no difference in practice, so
WP:NOTBURO is deemed to apply.—S Marshall T/C 06:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Endorse the keep - the AfD discussion addresses all of the main concerns of the nominee (lack of notability and coverage) and effective arguments were made that reference Wiki policy. The article is well-constructed and cited well for the most part and it looks to establish notability to me. It's perhaps the bare minimum to establish notability, but there are certainly enough independent sources to do so. Keep it up and adopt a "wait and see" attitude. Later Edit: the article was also very informative to me in particular. I blog sometimes about free PC games and this one has been suggested to me more than a few times, and it was interesting to read about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.151.143 (talk) 07:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse overturning a keep to a no-consensus is pointless. No objection to relisting after awhile to see if consensus has changed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - There were two well-argued "delete" stances, and two of the "Keeps" were "weak keep" type stances. Considering it was never relisted before, I feel like it should be relisted in order to find a clearer consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 13:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closing user's decision. There were good arguments all around, I feel that both the delete and keep votes were for the most part fair and well-argued, both sides made good reference to Wikipedia policy and although there does seem to be a few hasty comments from BOTH sides, looks like they were withdrawn or later addressed by other participants in the AfD. I'm happy with the closer's decision and wouldn't say there was "no consensus" - it seemed slightly biased towards "Keep" (even counting the weak keep votes) and I'm happy to wait and see what happens with the article. If similar issues arise in the future, it can easily be nominated again. In the meantime, particularly if there is a sequel coming, there might be additional coverage released so I don't see any benefit of overruling the decision or even reopening the AfD. ADDENDUM: Just commenting on some of the issues raised in the AfD (which is off-topic here anyway) but I'm a regular PC Powerplay reader, and the coverage mentioned is fairly significant, though none of the participants in the AfD mentioned that the magazine also followed up a year or two later and ran a small article on the completed game, as well. 101.160.5.179 14:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Overturn and Relist See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/03SadOnions/Archive - 2 of the 'keep' !voters are IP sockpuppets of the article creator, their votes have not been struck and have been counted towards the final tally it seems, not tallies should carry much weight anyway. The amount of IPs weighing in on the AFD of an obscure game should have rang warning bells, TBH. Rather than making this AFD round 2 perhaps editors here can appraise the sources for themselves in a reopened AFD. Someoneanother 16:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment actually, that may not be the case, considering they all mention having access to an Australian PC magazine, implying that they are Australian, and certain Aussie service providers actually use a pool of IPs that they share among all of their customers. For example, all of Telstra's broadband customers are given one of three or four different IPs each time they connect to the network, so people on that service are often using the same IP as somebody else. ie. If you and I both connected to the network at the same time, there's a very high chance we would be using the same IP address. In terms of so many comments on an "obscure game" raising eye-brows, that comment holds no weight, as the game is very famous within the RPG Maker community and the creator has many fans (it has somewhat of a cult following among many RPG Maker websites - the author publicly responds to fanmail, suggestions, gets sent fanart and music compositions, the game regularly gets featured on the front page of sites such as www.rpgrevolution.com, http:rpgmaker.net and even www.rpgmakerweb.com etc - which may in itself be an indicator of notability). You would be insulting the tens of thousands of fans with that comment. Keep in mind that the author also (until a few weeks ago) linked briefly to the Wikipedia article from his website, so it's very possible that some of his fans noticed it was up for deletion and weighed in. That's how I'm here, for example - I'm not from Wikipedia, but as a fan of this game, I wanted to express my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.88.239 (talk) 05:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Administrators who deal with sockpuppet investigations are aware of the ins and outs, if you are not convinced that the result is correct then please take it up with the admin. who closed the report. As it stands two of the participants are blocked as sockpuppets of 03SadOnions, who in turn has been blocked for 48 hours for sockpuppetry. Those !votes should have been struck to prevent exactly what has happened. The game itself may be well known within the RPGMaker community but said community represents a fraction of the video gaming populace. If you prefer 'non-mainstream' then fair enough, but how that assertion translates into a slight against the game or anyone who enjoys it/has a hand in it is beyond me. We're discussing the validity of this AFD, so don't start with this 'insulting the fans' business please, this isn't a
    meatpuppetry may be involved so caution is needed when weighing consensus. It wasn't this time, the result is a weak AFD which can and probably will be challenged. Better to have a broader discussion and settle it now. Someone another 13:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    - Comment. Shouldn't the sockpuppet issue have been raised in the AfD discussion then, so that participants and the closing editor were aware of it? If these votes should have been removed from the weighting, then the onus was on whoever closed the sockpuppet investigation to bring the relevant information to the AfD. ArkRe (talk • contribs) 05:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, this should have been made plain at the AFD. No, it doesn't mean we should ignore it. The process was subverted by a sock-puppeteer, therefore it should be re-opened and the offending !votes discounted. This is not something that will go away with hand-waving. Someone another 20:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not saying it should, I was just merely curious as to why it wasn't mentioned. Without knowledge of the sockpuppetry, the AfD looks like a perfectly normal, well-attended discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArkRe (talk • contribs) 06:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        It was just a mistake, by the look of it. Someone another 15:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
endorse even not counting the sock-puppets (although, as the editor above me notes, there may be other explanations for those IPs, and those explanations are valid) there were still some well-argued "keep" stances that addressed the concerns of the "delete" votes. The "keep" stances seemed more thoughtful than the "delete" votes and, in any case, I think it's safe to say that there's considerable resistance to deleting the article. Overruling a "keep" to a "no-consensus" closure is pointless anyway, as they're effectively the same thing. Regarding the notability, there is considerable evidence that the game has quite a following, at least in its specialty RPG Maker community (which is in no way the same thing as the greater community), and having an established cult-following is sometimes an indicator of notability, according to the General Notability Guideline. Closing user made the right decision, no need to re-open the AfD, let's all move on to other things. ArkRe 7:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- This is off topic, but could I please have the Single Purpose Account tag removed from my comment? I am active in editing many RPG Maker related pages and I am confident to participate in these discussions because I have often edited as an IP in the past. Considering there are allegations of sockpuppetry relating to this article, I understand the reasoning behind it, but as a new user, I kind of find this insulting. ArkRe (talk • contribs) 05:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay. CtP (t • c) 19:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The onus is on the community to make a case that the article should be deleted. If some reasoning is poor, that reasoning needs to be refuted in the deletion discussion. We can't have articles being repeatedly renominated until achieving success by chance. Allow re-nomination at AfD, but not until after six months from the last close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly understand your point of AfDs becoming excessive after a certain point, but I wouldn't necessarily say that a second nomination would have this effect (I admit that after a failed second nomination, it would be about time to give up). I don't agree with not allowing renomination for six months, at least not now. If a second nomination failed to get the article deleted, then yes, some sort of limit ought to be imposed to prevent repeated renominations in hopes of succeeding by chance. CtP (t • c) 20:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD resulted in "Keep", sockpuppetry and poor arguments not withstanding. It was a very weak nomination and didn't address existing sourcing. The nomination here at DRV is alo weak. I read only a complaint, not a rationale for why a wrong decision should be overturned. Given such weaknesses, I would be very unimpressed to discover a poorly participated, weak nomination, second AfD result in the opposite decision, unless it comprehensively reviewed the last AfD and all prior participants were advised. Given this DRV, I don't expect to see a comprehensive review of the last AfD in a quick renomination. A renomination in a month, or even two, would tell me that insufficient consdieration has been given to the nomination being a mistaken view, or to the possibility of a merger. For a quick renomination, I'd want to see a serious discussion having occured on the talk page. I think six months is a proper delay for renominating a straight "Keep". In the meantime, it is doing no harm, and you are certainly welcome to commence a "merge and redirect" subject to talk page and target page opposition. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - I agree with this rationale. While I think that the nominating IP (who opened both the AfD and this DRV) expressed their arguments later on which elaborated on the nom, perhaps a merge and redirect is possible. In this case, it would be difficult, as the article is fairly large and has a lot of separate sections, but I could easily see it being cut down and merged into, say, the general RPG Maker article or something. 124.180.9.143 (talk) 07:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per Someoneanother. (Full disclosure: I !voted to get the page deleted at AfD.) Admittedly, the concept of overturning a "keep" to a "no consensus" makes no sense at first, but if that "no consensus" results in relisting which will in turn result in more discussion from uninvolved editors, then there could be real purpose in it. CtP (t • c) 19:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(weak?) Endorse per SmokeyJoe. If there were issues with the AfD, such as sockpuppetry as pointed out by Someoneanother, it was up to the editors involved to make reference to this in the AfD so that the closing editor was aware of these issues. To me, there seemed to be no evidence in the AfD that this issue was raised. Based on that, and the fact that the article seems to have the bare minimum of reliable sources to pass the GNG (in fact, if it was in PCPowerplay, then that would lend it quite a lot of credibility, as that magazine is the most respected in Australia and New Zealand), I'm going to endorse. Perhaps allow it to be re-nominated later, but allow a month or two to pass in case new information comes to light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.205.1 (talk) 04:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Bass-ackward. Confirmed sockpuppetry is about as substantial a process failure as we ever see at DRV, especially when the issue wasn't raised in the AFD itself, nor evaluated by an administrator. Relist semiprotected with explicit mention of the sockpuppetry in the first afd in the procedural nom, to minimize the influence of the first afd's false consensus of one person talking at himself. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Obvious sockpuppetry. It wasn't a wrong close as such, but given the issues here it probably ought to run through another AfD that's not tainted. Black Kite (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can see in the investigation linked above, didn't the sock-puppetry only account for two of the !votes, and two badly argued ones (which used the "other things exist" argument amongst other things) at that? That still leaves a few well-argued stances from both sides that, discounting the invalid votes, still presented a well-attended discussion. I !vote to endorse the closure on the basis of the article being of obvious interest to some people, though I'm not opposed to relisting it again after a certain amount of time if nothing has changed. 124.180.9.143 (talk) 05:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.