Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Vanishing Point (alternate reality game)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Comments by 202.71.240.18, redacted from main AfD space

202.71.240.18 had a long discussion that I've moved here for the sake of the AfD's readability. A Train ^{take the} 17:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment and then STRONG KEEP. Is that called notable!? I would like to answer "YES" to that. Sources? Search in google news or something, and the outcomes are really not disappointing. Here, take it if you don't want to search.

First reports, Microsoft bodges Vista promo to bloggers, Laptops no bribe, says MS dated December 28;
Game January 8 event at CES (Week 1) dated January 9th;
a wide range of "reports" dated January 9th, including Forbes (though copied from somewhere else...);
Microsoft Reveals Mysterious Game as Viral Marketing for Vista from several reports NewsFactor Network, CA dated January 10th;
ZDnet report dated January 12th;
Another report for live events (Week 2) dated January 12th (NOTABLE enough?);
Microsoft admits Vista game involvement dated January 16th; Personally, I do not think these media coverage are paid by Microsoft.

Is that enough? I searched those from just Google News only, not to mention Yahoo! and Digg... Is that notable enough? If not try to see other articles as examples which are much less notable in terms of commerical value, such as codenames for CPUs produced by AMD under the AMD K8L microarchitecture such as Agena (processor), Rana (processor) etc. Why start those articles just because those CPUs were codenamed "INTERNALLY" with names of stars? Are they notable enough to start as an article when compared to this article? I personally do not think so.

BTW, did you remember the free Vista PC and Media Center PCs for bloggers? It's part of the game and received a lot of publicity too! Google News search on keywords: 'Vista Laptop bloggers'

If something was written as an advert, I think you should put and "Advert" tag. If the same remains then do the AfD, but now you're doing the reversed way, instead of putting the "advert" tag first, you nominated AfD, which in my opinion is not fair to the article and to the contributors. Why? When somebody first start a stub, not much references are present on the net, then I ask a question: "How references are to be add when there is none??" It just don't make sense at all. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vanishing_Point_%28alternate_reality_game%29&action=history and oh, the article starts January 1st, 2007...

More to add, an "Unreferenced" or a "Reliablesources" or "Primarysources" tag can be added to that too. It is not always for an article to fulfill every single style and rule to the Wikipedia, nor the article is perfect in shape and not needing further edits and improvements, it is not constructive to nominate everything for AfD for reasons such as "lacking independent sources". If it lacks those sources, then add it, I do not think the best way for citing sources is to make a long list of website addresses which is longer than the article itself right into the "references" and "external links" section. AND somebody like ME (yes, me!) actually loves to add "Sources" to the articles! If you can't see the list of sources, please be patient, I am trying to comprehend the list, and again, JUST nominate everything for AfD for the reason that those articles doesn't comply to every guidelines in Wikipedia are going to contribute NOTHING to Wikipedia!

And then I read about the Wikipedia official guidelines as in WP:CORP (the section you cited - products and services, which "Vanishing Point" is obviously neither a product nor service, and neet not to comply to that as the game is not a trademark so as to be sold for profit) and WP:WEB, I did not see anything related with those online press and the company who starts all this hype (i.e. Microsoft)
As for the WP:WEB guidelines written: "Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in internet directories or online stores."
I can see that the news coverages and media discussions are not a promotion and/or reprints of press releases, and therefore not needed to be compliance to that. And what else do you want to refute about these points? I am glad to discuss here with all of you. I end my comments and justifications with a STRONG KEEP and a sentence: "Please search GOOGLE before saying something stupid!!"

P.S. for reliablility problems of the above reports, those are real-life events and therefore is reliable. 202.71.240.18