Template:Did you know nominations/Barkley 2

Withdrawn

Barkley 2

 * ... that the video game Barkley 2 is a sequel to a fan game sequel to the game Barkley Shut Up and Jam! and the film Space Jam?
 * ALT1:... that the video game Barkley 2 is a sequel to a fan game, which itself was a sequel to the game Barkley Shut Up and Jam! and the film Space Jam?
 * ALT2:... that Barkley 2 is a sequel to a parody fan game in which a user plays as Charles Barkley?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Mann Lake

Created by Odie5533 (talk). Self nom at 01:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg While the hook is properly sourced, this article relies heavily on one source and only containing three sources, I'm not sure if there is enough substance in this article. I think a second opinion is needed. — DivaKnockouts (talk) 05:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It uses the Rock, Paper, Shotgun sources 6 times and the Polygon.com source 5 times. That's hardly relying heavily on one source. Could you be more specific as to how this article lacks sufficient substance? I'm scratching my head here a bit on this. There are dozens of other references for both the hook and the article out there if you need other proof, e.g., this one. --Odie5533 (talk) 11:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This article still only has three sources, and this is a game that is schuleled for late 2013-early 2014, more information will become available. Information can also change. — DivaKnockouts (talk) 20:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * All the content in the article is based on reliable sources. More information certainly will come out over time. I am not clear as to what the specific problem is here. --Odie5533 (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, these are reliable sources, but there are only three sources. There is not enough information in this article. That's the problem. — DivaKnockouts (talk) 20:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a particular area of the article that you feel I have not sufficiently covered? --Odie5533 (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you really think this article has been sufficiently covered? There is a lot of stuff missing mostly because the game hasn't been released yet. Information will become available as time passes but as of right now, is article, does not cover enough information. — DivaKnockouts (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sufficiently covered for DYK? Yes, I do. I don't think the fact that the game hasn't been released yet should have any bearing on the article's acceptance at DYK; I have had many DYKs approved for unreleased games. What specific information do you believe the article needs to cover in order to meet the DYK rules? --Odie5533 (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you read at the top, I am not sure. This is way I said "I think it needs a second opinion." Thank you, — DivaKnockouts (talk) 06:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote4.png DYK requires a second opinion. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Second opinion, article has enough content. Also it is big enough, even if duplicated text is removed, and newly made. no infringements detected.  I an not checking any of the hooks though!  Too many were nominated. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The purpose is so a reviewer can just review one they like. If you don't want to check any, that's fine. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: My thought when reading this, and then checking the sources, was to wonder whether this game was notable enough. It's a planned game that might be released in about a year, and there are only three sources. One is the developer's page, one is the Kickstarter page set up by the developer, and one is the Polygon site. Given WP:GNG, the general notability guideline which says the article's subject must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", I have severe doubts as to whether, absent more than a single independent source—AGF on it being a reliable source, as I don't know gaming sources—unaffiliated with the developer, this is sufficiently notable to qualify for DYK, or even, perhaps, to survive as an independent article at the present time. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you confused one of the refs with the external links, because two of them are independent: the Rock Paper Shotgun article and the Polygon article. I only used two independent refs, but here are others if you want to verify notability:, , , , , . --Odie5533 (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would add that all of the refs listed and the ones in the article are considered reliable by WP:VG/S. Very recent consensus was reached that Polygon.com is reliable as well (here). I'd never heard of it before, but then I saw WP:VG vetted it and every time I google a new game the Polygon articles show up. Seems reliable to me. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My mistake on Rock Paper Shotgun; I think I was misled by the text, which said he "describes" the game, which word I took to mean knowledge from the inside. (Not sure he could accurately describe it otherwise.) At any rate, perhaps you should include a couple of those other independent reliable sources in the article so it can demonstrate its notability by its secondary sourcing; it might also be nice for it to be up to date, since the Kickstarter campaign closed over two weeks ago and the article doesn't even make that clear, much less whether the fundraising was a success. My assumption, when reading the article, was that the campaign must still be in progress, because the text avoids any conclusion. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg No response in six days; will ping the user's talk page. I believe the issues noted above must be addressed before the article can be reviewed for approval. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please close this nomination. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Nomination withdrawn by creator. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)