Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wotch: My Sister, Myself

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 Merge to The Wotch. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 08:38Z

[edit] The Wotch: My Sister, Myself

The Wotch: My Sister, Myself (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Unreleased fanmade game for a webcomic, fails WP:NOTE. 16 distinct Google hits[1], all indicating that very little is known for this game in development (making it a WP:NOT for crystalballery candidate as well). Fram 06:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per nom, and that's about it really. The Kinslayer 10:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Very little is known of a lot of games in development, but everything in the article is sourced from the developers themselves. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Dread, could you please address the notability issue? Unfortunately, it appears your argument so far is only WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Part Deux 10:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I Am getting so SICK of that frinkin ESSAY that people keep sourcing!!! It says right on top: This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline, it simply reflects some opinions of its authors. Please update the page as needed, or discuss it on the talk page. I am seriously getting sick of people sourcing other wikipedia ESSAYS for things in deletion. Give me a DEFINITIVE Policy that says "Such-and-such is able to be deleted because it's not on Amazon" or "It has few hits on google", or "The article is crap and needs to be deleted" (I have SEEN that one, in which case an AfD is NOT appropriate, a rewrite is. Vikedal 06:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC) (If you wanna complain, do it on my talk page.)
  • Merge back into main article The Wotch, since the game is only in development now. Ambi Valent 10:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into main webcomic article until game is actually released at the very least. I still have doubts about it, it cites a forum and says it's a "canonical game by fans" which is a direct contradiction and it has images that are not discussed in the article. - Mgm|(talk) 12:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Once again: Canonical just means "Considered to be a part of overall continuity". I could, for example, Make a spinnoff (Let's go with The Wotch: Cheer!). It can be considered "Fan-made Canon" iff (Not a misspelling, means If and Only If) I Get the Main comic Author to run over everything and approve it. The same goes for the Halo series of books (Cite: OXM, Winter '06, the one with the Halo: Ghosts of Onyx Preview in it). They are considered Fan-made Canon simply because they are NOT made by Bungie, But the writer (In 3 of 4 cases, Eric Nylund) Got approval for the storyline from Bungie, to make sure it was in Continuity with the Halo Storyline. Vikedal 05:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There are many games listed in Wikipedia, many open source programs and preproduction movies listed so I see no problem in this being kept. -- UKPhoenix79 13:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • And again: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument. How does it satisfy WP:WEB? Part Deux 14:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Citing an essay to prove your point doesn't really do anything! You are using a policy ie WP:WEB for a webcomic! That holds little context to this case as a webcomic by its nature is different from large well known websites like yahoo.com or smaller more select ones like effingpot.com. Webcomics need different definitions just as movies in pre-production have special clarifications as movies that have been released. -- UKPhoenix79 02:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Possibly you haven't read WP:WEB. Like other websites, prominent webcomics have been cited in multiple, non-trivial and independent sources, have received noteworthy awards and have certain defined and accepted gauges of popularity and influence. Beyond that, frankly, webcomics also ought to be held to like standards as with other websites. RGTraynor 03:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
          • I really don't mean for this to sound rude... but have you read the page? This page is about a VIDEO GAME, yes the VIDEO GAME is based on a web comic... but how can a VIDEO GAME that is being developed be used when talking about WP:WEB? -- UKPhoenix79 08:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
            • You are quite correct, this has nothing to do with WP:WEB. Now, how does it fulfill the requirements of WP:NOTE, which was one of the reasons given in the original nomination? Your "keep" opinion doesn't address this. Fram 08:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
            • You don't need to shout, UKPhoenix79. As it happens, I responded to your own comment about the applicability of WP:WEB to webcomics. If you believe (accurately enough) that the notability of the webcomic itself is beside the point, you ought not have strayed onto the subject yourself. RGTraynor 19:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, WP:COI, WP:NFT. There are many significant preproduction movies, unreleased games and open source programs listed. An "in-development" bootleg game for a middling popularity webcomic created by a handful of fans isn't one of them. C'mon back when EA picks it up. RGTraynor 14:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. Non-notable webcomic with no non-trivial references. Does not satisfy WP:WEB. Part Deux 14:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Again, I say, What do web guidelines have to do with video games? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, WP:NFT, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, possibly Merge if it ever gets released and attains a degree of popularity. I haven't seen any proof of notability. Veinor (talk to me) 17:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not seem to satisfy WP:WEB WP:NOTE guidelines and does not exist yet, if ever (it never made its GBA release, after all). It does have entries at IGN and the like, but the low Googles indicate there is little interest outside of the webcomic's fanbase when compared to other fan/indie games featured on those sites (such as Halo Zero). GarrettTalk 04:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete As one of the developing staff of The Wotch: My Sister, Myself, the game is not far enough along to warrant a wiki page. In my opinion, there should be a mention of it on the main The Wotch page, but nothing more than that at this time. Tfrevor 04:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep/Merge You're pretty much saying that "Hey, it hasn't been released, and google/amazon don't care, so it's not notable" to most of the webcomic AfD's i've seen. Have a look at what's happening here. If Halo 3 didn't have the fanbase, it would have no google or amazon hits, thus making it "Not Notable" and AfD'able, which i'm sure some game-hating NUT would do. Give it some time, because the whole point of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, and this one definitely helped me out on some aspects of the game (Beforehand, i had no clue what the game was about).Vikedal 05:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    • You are quite correct: if noone had ever bought or even released Halo 2, the article on Halo 3 would be deletable. If no one had ever read or done a production of Shakespeare, his article and the article on his works would better be deleted as well. But what kind of argument is that? Halo 3 is notable, the article is referenced to reliable sources (part of them independent ssecondary sources), and this is one of these cases where you know that the game will be reviewed extensively, whether it is brilliant or it sucks. On the other hand, this is a game where little is known and nothing is written by independent reliable sources, and it is doubtful if even if it would ever be released, such reviews would appear anyway. If that does happen however, and this game does get notability, then nothing stops you from creating an article for it. An encyclopedia is not supposed to give you information on everything because it may one day become notable (every kid may one day become notable), but because it is already notable, whether it is already released or not. Fram 06:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Concur; that which lacks evidence of its notability is, mirabile dictu, non-notable. Congratulations, Vikedal, you've gotten it. (By the way, exactly how much help would a completely non-detailed article on a game that hasn't actually been released yet be to you?) RGTraynor 16:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, speculative article about a non-notable, unreleased video game. If it is ever released and attains notability then the article may be easily recreated. Also, is that forum post the only thing resembling a reference source for this article? If so, that's pretty appalling -- we should be looking for independent reliable sources, not linking to some promotional message board. —ptk✰fgs 08:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Could you point out the speculation? I checked and I don't see any. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
      • It's unreleased; it's already switched platforms once without a release... and it may never be released. Articles about things in the future are necessarily speculative. That's what "speculative" means. —ptk✰fgs 00:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, mention in The Wotch article if necessary. -- Dragonfiend 00:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and Merge with the main Wotch article. Not yet that notable, but perhaps may be when released. I believe it warrants at least a mention in the main article. Wellmann 08:17, 24 February 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.