Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Ni-Oh (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:21, 23 October 2012 editQworty (talk | contribs)13,129 editsm →Ni-Oh← Previous edit Revision as of 06:46, 23 October 2012 edit undoHijiri88 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users37,391 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 21: Line 21:
*'''Keep''' - There's enough coverage in ] to meet the ], and enough content to establish a pretty good Dev section. It's been officially announced, has a name, and in the alpha stages; I see no valid reason to apply CRYSTAL here. ] ] 00:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC) *'''Keep''' - There's enough coverage in ] to meet the ], and enough content to establish a pretty good Dev section. It's been officially announced, has a name, and in the alpha stages; I see no valid reason to apply CRYSTAL here. ] ] 00:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - If the release date is unknown this is a case of CRYSTAL BALL. ] (]) 07:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small> *'''Delete''' - If the release date is unknown this is a case of CRYSTAL BALL. ] (]) 07:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>
:'''Note''', the above SPA account appear to have as main purpose voting delete in almost all the Japan-related AfDs. ] (]) 08:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC) :'''Note''', the ] appears to exist solely to vote "delete" in almost all the Japan-related AfDs. If this was a non-notable/unconfirmed aspect of a specific franchise ('']'') I would favour a merge, but as it is there are enough sources for an independent article on this game. ] (]) 06:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
**That's totally arbitrary. ] specifically only applies to ''unverifiable'' information, and even specifies that "dates are not definite until the event actually takes place." The idea that verifiability hinges on whether or not the developer disclosed an arbitrary non-definite date doesn't hold water. ▫ ''']''' 07:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
*'''Delete.''' Clear case of ]. What's the point of having the policy if we're never allowed to use it? Listen, folks: The future is '''''ALWAYS''''' unverifiable. That's why it's called "the future." It makes no sense to say that ] applies only to the "unverifiable" future. It is--literally--a laughable argument, LOL. ] (]) 08:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
**I'm not sure you quite understand the policy. It's not a reason to go about deleting anything without a release date. It's when nothing is known about the topic and/or so the article resorts to nothing but ]. For instance, if the artice was ''Untitled Tecmo RPG'' and the article consisted of "Untitled RPG was announced on October 12, 2012, and fans expect it to release in 2015" - then you'd have a clear-cut case of CRYSTAL. That's not the case here, there's plenty of verified information, by reliable sources that have reported on it. ] ] 10:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
***That is impossible in the universe in which we live. We cannot verify anything that has happened "in the future" because the future hasn't happened yet. The future is by definition unverifiable, which is why the policy ] exists. If/when this item is released, AND if/when it becomes notable per our policies, it will merit an article. Not before. ] (]) 18:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
****This is not an article about an event that will take place in the future, it is an article about a game that '''was''' developed by Koei, that '''is being''' developed by Team Ninja, based on a script that '''was''' written by Kurosawa. They are planning on releasing that game, but if that does not happen it will not erase history <s>like the prom scene in ''Back to the Future''</s>. The article is written about things that have happened or are happening and those facts have been verified by sources deemed reliable by WikiProject Video games. The only part of the article that could conceivably be targeted by WP:CRYSTAL was the word "upcoming", so I've changed that to "as-yet unreleased". Now tell me which part of the article, exactly, contradicts which part of ]? ▫ ''']''' 19:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
*****Upon reflection, the prom scene in ''Back to the Future'' represents erasing the ''future''. Many apologies to the proponents of responsible temporal causality. ▫ ''']''' 21:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
******The phrase "as yet unreleased" makes the entire article deletable under ]. I've known a lot of people in my time who have tried to predict the future, usually over trivialities such as this one, and my reply to them is always the same: "Stop wasting our time; if you really know the future, just give me tonight's Lotto numbers." The fact is that nobody can predict when this thing is going to come out, or anything else about the future. That's why ] exists, and that's why this article doesn't belong here. Again, if/when this thing actually comes out, AND if/when it is demonstrated to be notable per our polices, then and only then should we have an article about it. ] (]) 21:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
*******I'm really trying to understand what you think ] is about, and why this article does not meet ]. Is it that you think an article should not be written on a product until it is commercially available? If something is worked on but never released, you think that negates any coverage it has received until that point? Or is it that any topic, no matter the coverage, that is tied to an arbitrary future timeframe is not notable until that timeframe has passed? Either way, the logic is flawed, for the reason I previously mentioned. The ] will '''''always''''' be notable even if they never happen, because of the amount of coverage they have already received. Contracts have been made, plans have been drawn, etc. That coverage exists. We cover things because they are notable, they have been noted, notations have been made. We do not know the future so cannot and do not rely on future events to validate inclusion.
********I was wondering how long it was going to take you to bring up ]. In fact, I was going to ask you not to bring up ], but I was curious what example you would use for ]. Regardless, ] is never a reason for inclusion. ] (]) 00:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
*******Just to be absolutely clear, ] means we cannot report on things that '''will happen''', we can only report on things that '''have happened'''. The development of this game '''has happened''' and '''is happening''' (you don't argue that point, correct?). Whether the release of the game '''will or will not happen''' is irrelevant to inclusion, as that is not the basis of the article. Obviously you are not arguing that the material is not true until the game is released, at which time it will have always been true. If you don't get the concept or aren't actually reading any of this I should probably stop trying. ▫ ''']''' 22:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
********Have you actually looked at the sourcing? It's REALLY lousy. It's from seven and eight years ago. I'd say that if these people are still actually working on this, they'd better hurry up. Since the sources are that old, how do you know they're still even working on it? The whole thing is really, really flimsy. You're making a lot of assumptions about something that probably is NOT happening right now and the future of which we cannot verify. ] (]) 00:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
*******On an unrelated topic, ] does not appear to have happened yet. Should we delete that article until we can confirm that Surtr has covered the Earth in fire? ]? Or is it enough that the topics have been blanketed by reliable sources, and we can include them whether or not they actually come to pass? ▫ ''']''' 22:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
********Just more ]. You seem to be on a real ] roll now. Please stop. ] can't be used in AfDs. Thank you. ] (]) 00:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
*********Yet another WP page you can link to without understanding the content. Yes, I did mention other topics, to illustrate to you that your conception of policy cannot be extended past this article, and that your perception of policy has no basis in policy. ] is about using similar articles as a defense or attack, not as a sarcastic example to illustrate your own logical fallacy. The article stands very well on its own, even if you can't grasp that or the policies behind that. If you don't wish to actually read comments before responding to them, or to actually read policies and essays before linking to them, that is your right as an anonymous internet citizen. ▫ ''']''' 00:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
*'''Some VERY strange arguments for inclusion.''' "There are some people somewhere working on a thing. The sources say they were working on it seven or eight years ago. Maybe they are still working on it. Maybe they will finish it one day. Hey--I know!--Let's have a Misplaced Pages article about it!" I can't believe we're even discussing this. Obviously, none of this is a credible rationale for having an article. ] (]) 00:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
**And yet again, under what conditions do you think that an unreleased work warrants an article? Are you saying that ] means that any work that is not yet released for public consumption is inherently non-notable? ▫ ''']''' 00:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
***You have a very weak grasp of what AfD discussions are all about. This is NOT the venue to be arguing about article verifiability in general. There are other places on Misplaced Pages to do that. The purpose of this AfD discussion page is to talk about '''''THIS ARTICLE''''', and not about unrelated policy issues or ]. So please try to stay on topic. As for this article, it is very poorly sourced and concerns something that hasn't happened. ] applies here. If you want to argue the appropriateness of the ] policy, go there and click on "talk" and you will find a talk page where you can make your observations and arguments. This isn't the place. ] (]) 00:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
**** Lol, ok. Per ]. ▫ ''']''' 00:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
****I'm sorry, but your conception of CRYSTAL is either wrong or not the way it's commonly enforced. If we enforced it like that, there wouldn't be a single article for any video game (or product in general) with a future release date; game articles could only be created on their release date or after. You can cite ] all you want, but we're not talking about a random article here or there; there are hundreds of well-sourced, unreleased video game, book, movie, etc articles out there that would easily survive at AFD. As should this one. ] ] 01:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
*****And those hundreds of video games were worked on for seven or eight years without being released? And the articles about them rely on a couple of small sources that amount to nothing better than blogs? Go ahead and bring up ]. You'll find that this article doesn't measure up to the standards you yourself would care to apply. ] (]) 03:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:46, 23 October 2012

Ni-Oh

AfDs for this article:
Ni-Oh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems like a case of WP:CRYSTAL for a game and film project that never came to anything. But I could be wrong, needs looking at by peoplewho know the sector SpinningSpark 01:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The article has been updated to reflect the current state of development. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Note, the WP:SPA appears to exist solely to vote "delete" in almost all the Japan-related AfDs. If this was a non-notable/unconfirmed aspect of a specific franchise (Godzilla (2012 film project)) I would favour a merge, but as it is there are enough sources for an independent article on this game. elvenscout742 (talk) 06:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Categories:
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ni-Oh (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions Add topic