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.
I was going to PROD this but I was concerned that I may have missed some possible sources and given the lack of attention the page gets, it would have been unfairly deleted. However, all I have been able to find are
[1][2][3]. As it stands, this is a non-notable video game unless anyone else is able to find additional reliable sources. Anarchyte (
work |
talk)07:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)reply
keep the extensive PCWorld and RPS reviews establish notability. Poor article non-the-less, will put on watch list and maybe improve.
Shaddim (
talk)
08:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Well our notability criteria require only "multiple reliable sources with extensive handling of the topic". Two reliable good sources are multiple (+ lesser refs). Being called "the Dwarf fortress in space" is very strong positive statement, indicating notability. Additionally to this: this was not an one hit wonder but is after 14 years still under development with an active community. So, active and real world reception, clear keep.
Shaddim (
talk)
15:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Given the connection established in the RPS interview of the developer, I would suggest a 2-3 sentence brief description in some sort of "Legacy" section in the article on
Starfire (board wargame). Merge and redirect. --
Izno (
talk)
19:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Delete/merge/redirect/(and keep) – ?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Lourdes16:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete PCWorld is the most solid source. Giantbomb appears to be a wiki for the game. Rock, Paper, Shotgun is an email interview with the developer. I feel it would need more sources to be notable.
Gameinfirmary (
talk)
00:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)reply
no need for feelings, as we have policies saying something is notable if "multiple reliable sources discussing it in detail", we have two which is multiple. Also, sources don't make something notable, their existence (hopefully) reflect a notability, so they are a some indirect measure to assess notability. Also, an interview is an in detail discussion, well thought out and prepared reception of a journalist, so counts. +notabiloty: the game is awarded with title being "Dwarf fortress in space" +notability: real world impact be being in use by many for 14 years, which should have weight (our excessive focus on determining notability as "how relevant is this topic for the reality/world" primarily on counting so called "reliable" sources instead of real usage and society reception is annoying)
Shaddim (
talk)
07:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)reply
An interview is clearly a non-independent source if not also a primary work, so it doesn't count toward GNG concerns. Your arguments are otherwise mostly
WP:ATADD. --
Izno (
talk)
17:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)reply
the references should not be notable, the subject should be notable. Being the "dwarf fortress of the 4x games" is notability.
Shaddim (
talk)
17:45, 2 August 2018 (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.
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.
I was going to PROD this but I was concerned that I may have missed some possible sources and given the lack of attention the page gets, it would have been unfairly deleted. However, all I have been able to find are
[1][2][3]. As it stands, this is a non-notable video game unless anyone else is able to find additional reliable sources. Anarchyte (
work |
talk)07:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)reply
keep the extensive PCWorld and RPS reviews establish notability. Poor article non-the-less, will put on watch list and maybe improve.
Shaddim (
talk)
08:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Well our notability criteria require only "multiple reliable sources with extensive handling of the topic". Two reliable good sources are multiple (+ lesser refs). Being called "the Dwarf fortress in space" is very strong positive statement, indicating notability. Additionally to this: this was not an one hit wonder but is after 14 years still under development with an active community. So, active and real world reception, clear keep.
Shaddim (
talk)
15:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Given the connection established in the RPS interview of the developer, I would suggest a 2-3 sentence brief description in some sort of "Legacy" section in the article on
Starfire (board wargame). Merge and redirect. --
Izno (
talk)
19:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Delete/merge/redirect/(and keep) – ?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Lourdes16:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete PCWorld is the most solid source. Giantbomb appears to be a wiki for the game. Rock, Paper, Shotgun is an email interview with the developer. I feel it would need more sources to be notable.
Gameinfirmary (
talk)
00:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)reply
no need for feelings, as we have policies saying something is notable if "multiple reliable sources discussing it in detail", we have two which is multiple. Also, sources don't make something notable, their existence (hopefully) reflect a notability, so they are a some indirect measure to assess notability. Also, an interview is an in detail discussion, well thought out and prepared reception of a journalist, so counts. +notabiloty: the game is awarded with title being "Dwarf fortress in space" +notability: real world impact be being in use by many for 14 years, which should have weight (our excessive focus on determining notability as "how relevant is this topic for the reality/world" primarily on counting so called "reliable" sources instead of real usage and society reception is annoying)
Shaddim (
talk)
07:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)reply
An interview is clearly a non-independent source if not also a primary work, so it doesn't count toward GNG concerns. Your arguments are otherwise mostly
WP:ATADD. --
Izno (
talk)
17:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)reply
the references should not be notable, the subject should be notable. Being the "dwarf fortress of the 4x games" is notability.
Shaddim (
talk)
17:45, 2 August 2018 (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.