Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eclipse phase(Game)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Close appears to be a bit late. lifebaka++ 15:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eclipse phase(Game)

edit
Eclipse phase(Game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable product. Is not released under creative commons (only the text of the website is), recently created, so WP:CRYSTAL on notability. CSD-A7 needs to include a provision for non-notable products. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 14:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notability needs to be established. As of the current version of the article, notability is not established. On the site, it even says that the game is not out yet (ex Pre-Order information released on 08/23/2009 - 12:53). Besides essentially self-published promotional "citations", there is no notability of the product asserted (besides the removed erroneous statement that it is released under CC), and any speculation on its notability in the future as a basis for notability now is a WP:CRYSTAL failure. Thus, I feel it should be deleted per WP:NOT and WP:NN. On hindsite, ignoring a lack of {{db-a7}} support for NN products, I should have nominated this for {{db-context}} ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 22:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion of notability, which is absent from the article. Wikipedia is not a directory/list of everything that exists. It's fine as it is to add it to some "list of article" with the lack of notability as it is, but without asserting notability, it should not have its own article, as stated in WP:NN. As for a rationale of why it is not notable, read the article: {quote|Eclipse Phase is a science fiction role-playing game with transhumanist themes. It is published by Catalyst Game Labs.}}. That's it, nothing else, no GNEWS citations that are barely RS (since nowadays practically everything is reviewed regardless of notability), and the only citation added seems like partially self-promotional (Q&A section). Even the comments (ex "Of course, TH ideas aren't new to science fiction or RPGs: for example, Transhuman Space RPG. How does this compare?") on the page seem to imply non-notability. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 14:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that it was a content guideline. It is an article guideline. Sure, it can be mentioned in wikipedia, but does it deserve it's own article? Unless it asserts notability, it does not, as stated in WP:NN. Also, in reply to J Milburn below, try to avoid WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments, Tunnels and Trolls is in because of its age and historical impact. Eclipse Phase isn't even out commercially in retail yet (hardcover), and was released on the 23rd of last month, hardly "historical notability". Tunnels and Trolls article asserts notability (2nd game of genre), this article does not assert notability at all, besides "citing" a Q/A and/or review of the game that basically describes the game, which is de facto going to exist because nowadays, almost all games are reviewed, no matter its notability. We are not a mirror of review sites, as wikipedia is WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 22:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An "assertion of notability" (or any text within the article) is content. I can make a whole bunch of "assertions of notability"... that it's licensed under the Creative Commons, or that it explores the concept of swapping out bodies, or that it has been optioned for a movie, but there's no telling if any of those will be good enough to satisfy you. Please quote the exact text of WP:NN that specifies what has to be in the article. --Explodicle (T/C) 00:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - At first glance, looks to be adequately sourced, but:
    • The first and second links are interviews with the creators. Great for verifiability, but not independent so no good for notability.
    • The third says "I was sent a review pdf copy for the game." - not sure where we stand on that sort of thing but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.
    • The fourth link is a just a few sentences about EP in a much larger convention report - hardly substantial coverage.
    • The fifth link is just the license from the creators' website.
so with only one substantial item of independent coverage, the topic fails WP:N and should be deleted per WP:DEL. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Erb? I'm really curious how an interview with the creator by a RS doesn't help with WP:N. The coverage is by an independent source, which is what WP:N is looking for And if getting a review copy/screening of a book/movie/whatever disqualified a review, we'd not have articles on pretty much any movie or book as all RSes tend to be given free copies... Hobit (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Interviews seem fine for establishing notability provided that they are published in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. If a source elects to use an interview format, rather than rewrite the words of the person they interviewed into a narrative, then why does that matter. Jll (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point of order or what have you: Noian's statement that the game is not licensed under the Creative Commons is false. You're free to download the book from Posthuman's official torrent and read the bottom-right corner of page 5, where it states that "This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. ... (What this means is that you are free to copy, share, and remix the text and artwork within this book under the following conditions: 1) you do so only for noncommercial purposes; 2) you attribute Posthuman Studios; 3) you license any derivatives under the same license." Say what you will about the notability, but basing even a part of an AfD argument on false statements because you failed to research doesn't do much to support your claim, or your credibility. 68.226.207.5 (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Noteworthy as the first creative commons licensed roleplaying game. (Both the book and the website are CC-licensed). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jba29 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC) — Jba29 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - Eclipse Phase is significantly covered in several independent secondary sources (H+, Game Journal) and therefore meets the requirements for notability. The article as it stands is short and about a recently published RPG that doesn't have a huge following, but brevity and lack of popularity shouldn't be grounds for deletion. LeeColleton (talk) 01:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Granted, the article needs a lot of work, this is a new game with some unique game mechanics and is certainly worthy of a thoughtful Wikipedia article. Give the article a chance to be expanded. Be bold. Buxley Hall (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - The game *is* under a CreativeCommons license, has a fairly unique game universe with the transhuman focus. I found out about it via the h+ article. The PDF can be downloaded from free from Mininova legally [1]. It's too new to have a large following yet but that would mean everything new wouldn't get an article. Besides, there can't be that many RPGs around anyway. H3g3m0n (talk) 03:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm not sure exactly how notability works, but there are at least 8 threads on RPG.net about Eclipse phase within the first 5 pages. It is released under the CC license, and its the first RPG to do so. It also the first RPG to use the business model of giving away the electronic product and charging for the printed one (that I know of). The fact that there are 10 or 15 people commenting on here to keep also seems like an arguement for its notability to me. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply at all. The game may make predictions about the future, but the article is about the game, not it's predictions. -Simon Goodson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.75.138 (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC) — 70.253.75.138 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - The first palette of copies was sold at Gen Con in almost no time. It is a RPG-setting just recently released by an established publishing company, already optioned for film, uses a setting quite different from others in current production and is either the first RPG released under the CC license (or at least one of the first and currently the most publicly noted). It is as notable in my point of view as a new RPG could be. Heiko Oertel (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)— Heiko Oertel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - This RPG is unique in the fact that it is a mainstream (i.e., not indie) and professionally produced book that is offered essentially for free, as the publisher personally seeded the torrent. This takes the opposite approach of Wizards of the Coast, a company that doesn't offer its products digitally, for sale or otherwise. By making this choice, the Eclipse Phase publisher takes the discussion in a new direction. We'll see if others follow suit. In the meantime, the game certainly rates inclusion here. LanceHawvermale (talk • contribs) 21:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Percy Snoodle's source outline and my response there to. Hobit (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2009 (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.
  1. ^ http://www.mininova.org/tor/2879222
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eclipse_phase(Game)&oldid=1137816502"