Talk:Cubed³

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.
VG To-do:


[edit] Deletion

Totally respect the weariness of the article, but first of all, it certainly doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria:

"Blatant advertising: Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service, or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company, product, group, service, or person as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion; an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well."

(Note bold) I've written it in an entirely encyclopedic manner. Additionally you may look at my history, im certainly not a spammer. So I would reccommend attempting to reach a concensus, though i'm not sure how it's done, or who initiates it. Thanks very much to whoever does that. Slydevil 15:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a speedy candidate, but it also makes no assertion at all of meeting our website inclusion criteria so it may be considered for WP:AFD. I removed the speedy tags and also removed the unsourced text from the article that needs reliable 3rd party sourcing.--Isotope23 16:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Yup, thankyou! As for AFD, I do have notability evidence, but didn't know how I could insert it into the article suitably, give me a sec and I can put it here...and I certainly need some 3rd party sourcing, so i'm working on that. Slydevil 16:25 12 June 2007 (UTC)
AfD would buy you 5 days to find multiple reliable sources demonstrating notability; I'm not suggesting this isn't notable, I'm just saying the evidence isn't here right now. Please note, assertions of popularity, etc need to come from external sources, not from their own website.--Isotope23 16:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Got'cha, thanks very much. Here's the evidence i've collected, i'm pretty sure per the following evidence that it definitely meets at least one of the criteria for notability. Large third party publications sourcing Cubed3:

Kotaku [1][2], Gamespot [3], Google [4], Itwire [5]CNN [6], Eurogamer [7], CVG [8], Destructoid [9] [10], Engadget [11], Joystiq [12]. Cubed3 is also scattered all over Wikipedia itself, i.e, the Wii article. (External Links).

It's well known among the industry, and the site often officially reveals new titles in development, such as the recent 'Archime-DS' [13]. Lots of interviews, including: Vice president of Square Enix [14], Konami [15], Capcom [16]...and the rest [17]. Both Nibris and Crossbeam studios quote Cubed³ on their official site's [18][19].

Satisfactory? Slydevil 17:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of these would not qualify per WP:WEB take the CNN link for instance. It is about the Nintendo launch and only mentions Cubed in passing. The Inquirer link is the same thing... it uses Cubed as a source but the article isn't actually about Cubed. The itwire link is better; it appears to actually specifically be about Cubed. The sourcing that would be required per WP:WEB would have to be multiple, non-trivial, 3rd party sources about the subject. That is, at least a few articles from well known publications that are specifically about Cubed and are more than just a quick paragraph or Cubed being mentioned in passing during an article on another topic.--Isotope23 17:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, i'll try to locate some more links similar to itwire, but are publications reporting about news that Cubed provided really trivial? Also, how about articles like N-Sider and N-Europe? How have they not been deleted, as in, what criteria did they satisfy. Slydevil 17:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The publications would not be considered trivial, but the coverage would be for purposes of meeting WP:WEB. Those other 2 sites you mentioned have probably just evaded notice up to this point. I'm not really in the business of going around looking for pages to delete so I'm content to leave them be (I'd actually leave this page alone as well but I'm giving you a bit of devil's advocacy so you understand what criteria someone arguing for deletion would be likely grading this against).--Isotope23 18:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I see, thanks a bunch for all the help by the way (especially for the baby steps), i'll keep searching for evidence of notability, ready for when/if it does get nominated for AFD. Slydevil 18:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)