Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Way (game series)

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. While there are more keeps than deletes, AfD is not a strict vote count, and I agree with Marasmusine's assessment of the sources; there aren't enough to meet the notability criteria. Unfounded allegations of corruption don't exempt the article from it. Veinor (talk to me) 02:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Way (game series)

The Way (game series) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Amateur game made with RPG Maker. Doesn't meet notability requirements, or has verifiable sources. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - In my opinion, this game has enough merit to earn its own page, if given sources. Bakazuki 02:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - this game series is notable enough to merit its own article, and sources ARE available. aeymxq 06:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - appears to have merit, better to improve it than delete it?--Arthana 10:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    • But there's no reliable sources. All the citations in the article are either community fansites, user-submitted reviews, or non-notable awards; none of these fit the requirements at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 10:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
      • The reason The Way shall never be mentioned at IGN and the like is because they aren't being bribed to cover it, the sad truth is that nearly all officially notable magazines write what they are told to. The closest you will get to something of this level is reviews from some of the decade old RM2K communities, I agree that without any sources there is no point in keeping the article but the community can bring more then enough sources who's word is considered law within the community. the problem is that they will remain unnotable compared to sellouts like Gamespy, therefore the only way to save The Way is to make an exception and consider such sources satisfying. -Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.91.101 (talk • contribs)
        • There are no exceptions to meeting Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Notability or Wikipedia:Attribution. Either this game's position as "an important game in RM2K history" has to be supported by such fact-checked sources, or this article has to go. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
          • The Wikipedia article about sources and notability presented them as guidelines and not policies, now English is not my first language but I figured that this means that while these rules should be generaly followed there can be exceptions, hence them being Guidlines and not Laws. -Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.91.101 (talk • contribs)
            • WP:N is a guideline (which I think this article may meet, see below), but WP:V is policy. Marasmusine 16:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
              • I've never questioned the second article, only notability, thank you for confirming my assumption converning it -Anonymous {{unsigned|89.139.91.101
  • Keep - Wikipedia says that a site with a moderation policy can be considered reliable if there is not much coverage in print. MusashiExtra 11:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC) — MusashiExtra (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • That's not mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
      • It does here.--MusashiExtra 20:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
        • So it is. But under your cited example, there is also the following:

          In this sense, where moderators act as editors to review material and challenge or correct any factual errors, they could have an adequate level of integrity.

          From what I can tell, none of the cited sources seem to do any fact-checking; they take in user reviews, maybe check that the submission isn't blantant spam and just postit on the website without doing any fact-checking. It's rigourous fact-checking and reviewing of material that makes a source reliable, and from what I remember of the RPG Maker community, very few, if any, of the sites in the community do that. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - The Way is an important game in the RM2K history, while it has little meaning to the industry as a whole it is frequently refereed to in the RM2K community, it is very meaningful within a small circle, but then again, so is RM2K itself -Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.91.101 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - I fail to see the problem with the article. Most of the things in it are in fact facts, because they are simply things in the game. You could say the source is the game itself. The game itself is fairly popular, and deserves its own page. The problems with it don't really warrant deletion, though some editing and better sources could be helpful. Validator 11:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC) — No such user exists; actually added by 88.153.82.104 (talk · contribs)
  • Keep - I agree with the above. And i dont agree with you calling it a "amateur" game. Have you even played it? If you have, its obvious it wasn't "amateur", it must have taken a lot of skill and a lot of effort to create. If you If you haven't, i dont really see how you can pass judgement on such a thing, unless you have REALLY reliable, non-biased sources, who dont automatically think "this is made with RM2K, so it must be crap".Hudabigbadwolf 16:27, 11 June 2007 (GMT) — Hudabigbadwolf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete; I will use WP:V policy, WP:Reliable sources and WP:N guidelines to address the provided references::
  • Gaming World is a 'write your own review' site; the reviews are user submitted therefore not reliable.
  • Kobra's Corner shows no sign of editorial control, it's a blog-type website, again not reliable per WP:Reliable sources
  • Phalanx Games; Don't know about this site's history or if it is reliable, but hero bash doesn't appear to be a staff member, so I assume a user-submitted review.
  • The Misao Game awards; I will give the benefit of the doubt here, as a gsearch for 'misao awards' brings a large number of hits.
  • RPG Maker wiki, not reliable per WP:EL etc.
  • Reviews Workshop; forum, not reliable per WP:EL
  • Crestfallen Studios; not an independent source.
So, whilst I accept the Misao Game award as possibly a claim to notability, there aren't enough independent, non-trivial, reliable sources to back it up. Marasmusine 16:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. There are no reliable sources given, and, since it's not a commercial game (or even one made without the aid of game design tools), they are automatically less likely to exist. If you want to save this article find some reliable sources--"I like it"-style pleading won't save this article. GarrettTalk 08:36, 12 June 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.