Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DarkwebSTREAMER

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 keep‎. Opinion has changed over the course of a week. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DarkwebSTREAMER

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

DarkwebSTREAMER (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON for an unpublished, previewed-but-not-otherwise-announced, video game. Two of the four sources are the same author, and the other two are heavily interview quotes.

My preferred result here is draftify, which I'd do unilaterally except that the article is older than 90d per WP:DRAFTIFY. ~ A412 ^talk! 05:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Australia. ~ A412 ^talk! 05:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify - Probably should have done it myself in January. Instead I paced a source analysis on the article talk (does not meet GNG) and replaced the notability banner that the creator removed. No new sources forthcoming and I think it is WP:TOOSOON. Per that essay, draftify would be a suitable WP:ATD. Failing agreement to draftify, this would be a delete. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The page creator has now added these addtional sources to the page. ^[1][2][3] Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Despite adding 3 sources, there's still nothing in the article on the page, of course. Deletion is not for cleanup, but this is a page that really isn't ready to be out of draft. Looking at the three added sources, nothing in the PCGamer or RPG site articles really demonstrates notability. A mention in the New York Times is more significant. It is mentioned in the context of an article about a number of games that are mourning the Internet's olden times. As such, it is just an example, and again, I remain unconvinced of notability here. But I think it definitely suggest potential. I still think this is WP:TOOSOON but think it is good evidence that notability may be attained, and that working on the article in draft would not be time wasted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think [1] [2] [3] are WP:THREE reliable, independent sources that give significant coverage to the subject. Skyshiftertalk 19:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The first of those is from Kotaku. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources articles published in Kotaku from 2023 onward should generally be avoided. So that is not a WP:RS. The other two I discuss above, but PC Gamer is writing about what is in an in-development game. Nothing in that speaks of notability. The New York Times talks about a trend in games and thus mentions this one in that context, which shows notability for something but not really this game. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The VG projct isn't completely prohibiting new Kotaku articles. Articles post-2023 can be used depending on context. I don't see any suggestion of content farming or AI in that article, for example. Skyshiftertalk 10:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, in context then: This page is about a game that has not even been released yet. We are very certainly in WP:TOOSOON territory to establish the reception of a game that no one can even play. And if no one can play this game yet, how did the Kotaku writer gain access? That doesn't look like an independent review either. This page is essentially promotional and is based on promotional content. Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Articles about to-be-released games exist all the time. Of course we can't write a reception section yet, but this isn't a requirement. Skyshiftertalk 12:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Nom comment: I think this now crosses the bar to keep; newly added sources are good, and I think in particular the New York Times source demonstrates impact beyond "here's a preview for a game". ~ A412 ^talk! 15:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. "Video Games Are Mourning the Old, Weird, Clunky Internet - The New York Times". web.archive.org. 2024-02-06. Retrieved 2024-03-17.
2. Chamberlain, Paige. "Darkweb Streamer Preview - Can you earn new viewers and keep your sanity? | RPG Site". www.rpgsite.net. Retrieved 2024-03-17.
3. published, Jody Macgregor (2023-11-30). "Horror game darkwebSTREAMER contains an infinite procedurally generated internet and that sure sounds horrifying to me". PC Gamer. Retrieved 2024-03-17.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Maybe there is some argument for TOOSOON. However, once it's created (with sources meeting GNG), in the absence of a guideline that says a notable videogame in development but not released is unsuitable for inclusion, it's "TOOLATE" to delete, in my view — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.