Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game 3.0

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Delete. Jersey Devil 10:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Game 3.0

Game 3.0 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable commercial jargon, possible viral marketing efforts Chicbicyclist 00:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • It is very notable. and has nothing to do with marketing efforts - it is about game content design techniques/ethics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcdaniel3 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-09 00:31:14
    • Unless you can cite sources to demonstrate that people other than the person at Sony, who is giving presentations on this concept, have actually acknowledged it and that it has become accepted into the corpus of human knowledge, it is original research, which is forbidden here. Everything in Wikipedia must first have been through a process, outside of Wikipedia, of fact checking, peer review, publication, and acceptance into the corpus of human knowledge. That means, in this case, people other than, and independent of, its inventors documenting the idea, to demonstrate that it has been acknowledged by the rest of the world. (And that doesn't mean news reports that simply say that the inventors are going to speak about the idea.) Uncle G 01:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to something like, "third generation game". I'm not video-game intelligible enough to exactly understand the drift here, but I think one of the video game generations might suffice. -- Kevin (TALK)(MUSIC) 03:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • This is analogus to something like "Web 2.0" - Game 3.0 is not a generation of hardware, software or any particular technology stack. Game 3.0 is the new era of thought surrounding a collection of proven industry concepts that have become a percieved standard. All of the current console and game console software creators efforts have contributed to what the industry has come to expect from game 3.0. Jmcdaniel3 04:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is not a video game generation. It's made up marketing gobbledegook. Andre (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I think that you may be confusing this with console manufacturer hardware generations (example: NES, SNES, N64, GCN or 286, 486, pentium class) this has nothing to do with traditional "video-game generations". Its mostly content designer methology revolving around standardized content management tool and integrated communication (text message, VoIP chat, video chat, etc..) API's. Jmcdaniel3 05:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Marketers' crap. Why can't we have marketing that's at least as good as Blast Processing anymore? :( Ed Ropple - Blacken - (Talk) 04:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • All - I would like to add to the discussion - the article states "Game 3.0, a phrase coined by Sony Computer Entertainment, refers to a perceived 3rd generation of console based video game experiences or design ethics." Which is exactly what it is "a phrase that refers to a percieved generation of..." The referenced links do prove that fact.

I would also like to point out that the users who marked this for delete while tagging it as marketing material are doing so based on a personal agenda, and not for the concern of Wikipedia article content quality. You can examine the users 'talk' pages and clearly see that the users calling this marketing and spam have their own strong opinions about the industry in question that this movement doesnt mesh with.

At the end of the day - wether they personally like this or not, it is a phrase coined by SCE and any press resource can validate that.

Please return this article to its normal category - thank you. Jmcdaniel3 05:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

    • I added more press links to support the articles core claim of what Game 3.0 is at this time. It could change in the future - but when it does, no worries - Wikipedia technology will allow the community to update it. Jmcdaniel3 05:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
This is nonsense. Seriously. Andre (talk) 06:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
So you can prove that SCE did not coin this phrase? Who did then? Link? Jmcdaniel3 06:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstand me. It doesn't matter who has coined the phrase or why -- it's a non-notable, neologistic piece of original research. Andre (talk) 07:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
an industry leader (Sony computer Entertainment) coining a phrase is very notable. As the article mentions all platform vendors have contributed to this Game 3.0 perception. The article itself is not orignal re-search, the article just needs to be flashed out more as the industry evolves more. There is work to be done here, but that work is not to delete this historic and important article and try to pretend it didnt happen or doesnt matter. Jmcdaniel3 07:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - but will it make gaming on my modem like a LAN party? --Action Jackson IV 07:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • If you are going to vote delete, please provide commentary to support your vote. I suggest this vote not be considered.
  • Delete as a non-notable neologism, with added original research. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 10:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Again, a phrase coined by the market leader is historic and very notable.

Non notable would be some garage full of AV engineers commenting on the history of rock over the last 100 years.

SCE is currently the market leader - everything they do or say is notable as it shapes the industry. It is as notable as a speech by the President of the United states commenting on the state and advancements in foreign trade. If the president coined a phrase describing the modern state of foreign trade would you say it is non-notable? Jmcdaniel3 00:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Technically, Microsoft is the market leader of the current generation(360, Wii, PS3).--Chicbicyclist 03:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
No offence intended - but I think you need to go take some business classes and then come back and try to have this debate. Being a market leader is not defined by near-term sales. TD there are over 190,000,000 SCE platforms sold worldwide. No other console manufacturer in the history of the business has sold as much. This entire debate about this article being deleted really concerns me about Wikipedia's ability to maintain accurate content. When you recommended this article for deletion upon personal agenda (which can be proven in the article edit history where you edited the article text to reflect your personal bias the same time you recommended it for deletion) you did not take the time to understand basic concepts - for example, here you demonstrate that you have no idea what being the market leader means. If these kinds of antics carry on, and over long term people can delete and modify factualy content on Wikipedia to reflect their personal biases, the content on Wikipedia will become more and more worthless and only reflect the concensus of the users who remain and enjoy this kind of sophmoric information control (example: the act of you suggesting this article be deleted because of your personal biases) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmcdaniel3 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
What biased edits? All I did was add the wrong deletion tag, removed it and put the correct article for deletion tag instead. I never touched the content of the article--Chicbicyclist 02:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
So what about changing the first line of the article to read "....a phrase coined by SCE 'when they thought the Playstation 3 wasnt a complete bomb'" or something to that effect. I had no idea Wikipedia was a venue for such nonsense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.193.54.250 (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
    • How does that link prove a bias? - ALSO - the TOS for Wikipedia clearly state that sock puppets are not allowed. This delete vote should be ignored. Jmcdaniel3 23:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Neglected to sign in. Locke13x 00:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
      • ok so now that you have signed-in - how does that page prove a bias? Game 3.0 is not about SCE digital entertainment content platforms. Where is the bias? and bias twoards what? I will agree that "4D" is total marketing speak. Again Game 3.0 is analogus to things like "Web 2.0". It isnt really a consumer level topic but rather a software design/project management centric topic. A term does not have to be a consumer friendly bit of info for it to be Wikipedia worthy. I can clearly understand the reaction by consumers. Game 3.0 has been present in the industry since Microsoft standardized the XBOX Live! service across its software library via developer/publisher design ethics discipline. Now that the market leader has coined the phrase - it can be considered notable, and not just casual speak used by developers/designers behind the scenes. Jmcdaniel3 00:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Also Locke can you explain this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Locke13x Neglected to log in? HAH more like Neglected to make sockpupet account just to vote this entry off. Jmcdaniel3 01:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
      • One, until now, I had recently edited Wiki under my IP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.74.236.150 Two, looking at your past entries, it seems like your account has been solely dedicated to this farce of an article. Now please stop with the ad hominem attacks. My vote still stands. Locke13x 01:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 01:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete nothing more than a marketing term used by one company. Koweja 01:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, just yet another arbitrarily-named term made up in school one day by Sony's marketing department. This is not a buzzword that has caught on like web 2.0; when and if (iff!) it does it can be recreated. At this rate we might as well have articles on 4D and real-time weapon change... GarrettTalk 08:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I must move towards delete as well. This is a marketing term made up by Sony to promote the PlayStation 3. The question that I must ask though, is "what the hell is game 2.0 then?" Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The article explains it, albeit in a more down-to-earth way than Game 3.0. GarrettTalk 09:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually Game 3.0 was in use since about spring 2006 - and not even within SONY but at Microsoft when considering next gen Windows game experiences. I tried to research that for wikipedia to help the cause of this article, but there is nothing publically available. Oh well - I suspect the Wiki community will delete this and we will just re-create it when more uses become public. No matter when the article is re-created tho, SCE was the first to publically and in the eyes of the world media coin the phrase. (that fact seems to be what has caused such a retailiation against the article by SCE haters). I guess Wikipedia also doesnt have many members from the game development community voting here otherwise we would see far less deletes and more strong keeps. I still think that the article is based on the FACT that SCE coined the phrase - again SCE is the global market leader and I would think that what they do/say is notable. Especially when the phrase was born at the largest software company in the world (Microsoft). Jmcdaniel3 14:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
      • We cannot have information on Wikipedia that can't be verified. Hearsay from game designers (or those claiming to be game designers) still counts as original research. GarrettTalk 20:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
        • The article itself is not hearsay. ITs states that SCE coined the term, and adds some background. It also lists other industry contributions that really nobody can deny. Discussion of who uses ther term and where is a different matter. Jmcdaniel3 21:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Whoever Jmcdaniel3 is he is completey dead on with the article and his statements on the origins of the term. Sony did beat Microsoft to the punch when it comes to using this term in the public eye. The term has been used within Microsoft and MS Game Studios since early Q1 2006. It is all over internal meeting minutes and discussion records that will never be released for public consumption. Since this page looks to be made up of Sony haters, I will poke fun and say that if Sony is going to say Game 3.0 when positioning their products, they need to actually release software that can be considered Game 3.0. 66.193.54.250 16:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    • "I've seen secret records of it being used by Microsoft, but I can't show them to you." Come on, "secret sources" aren't gonna fly on Wiki. This is getting ridiculous.Kzer-za 17:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
      • There are no secret sources referenced in the article. Are there any facts in the article that you can dispute or disprove? Jmcdaniel3 22:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Could you convert your references to an inline format, per Wikipedia:Citing sources? It would help me figure out the specific problems that may be fixable, and whether or not to recommend a "keep and cleanup" or a deletion. I've only done a quick look-through, as my web connection is spotty at the moment. Dancter 03:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Kzer-za has a point. If the primary sources (the Microsoft internal meeting minutes and discussion records) aren't accessible, and no reliable sources attest to the claim, there's no way for users to judge the veracity of such information. Wikipedia is ill-equipped to handle those sorts of claims, which is why there is an attribution policy that discourages them. Dancter 03:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete It's nothing more than a Sony marketing buzzword right now. In the very unlikely event that it becomes a widely used industry term, then a Wiki article will make sense.Kzer-za 01:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • And who are you? Jmcdaniel3 23:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
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.