Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonblast


 * 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 keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 05:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Antonblast

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Contested prod. Original reason: "Non-notable and almost unsourced. Google didn't give anything useful." —  Wasell ( T ) 🌻🇺🇦 04:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC) Keep The above sources identified are highly variable in reliability and triviality, but I think they generally establish enough of a pattern of non-trivial current coverage to establish notability. That said, I think the premise of the nomination was fair; the article lacks sourcing and needs some work. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —  Wasell ( T ) 🌻🇺🇦 04:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete cannot find sources to establish notability, if sources are found then I will change this to draftify per TOOSOON &mdash; Karnataka  talk  08:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete there's some minor coverage along the likes of but mostly it's just database entries and promotional social media accounts.  Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 19:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep based on, , , , , , , , , (relating to development). - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No disrespect intended, but the breadth of sourcing found makes me wonder if y'all aren't using inefficient search methods. I find that Google limits searches for some reason, so if I search "intitle:"Antonblast" it misses a lot of sources. In order to find a lot of these, I had to do site:[website] OR site:[website] OR etc. etc. If anyone wants, I can post my search method on their talk page. It really helps a lot. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That would be very helpful; I use a similar method for older games with generic titles. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Abstain Delete  WP:FUTURE, WP:NOTNEWS future product announcement. Graywalls (talk) 06:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not certain what the application of these guidelines is. As demonstrated with the sources provided in this AfD, Antonblast is discussed by multiple reliable secondary sources in non-trivial detail, going beyond merely discussing facts about the game but discussing their impressions of the trailers and demos of the game. WP:FUTURE is a particularly confusing invocation; the argument of notability is not based on speculation, rumor, or presumptions, unverified or verified. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In fact, WP:NOTNEWS is even more confusing. It certainly doesn't fit points 1, 3, or 4. And 2, that's clearly talking about events, not product releases. The only thing potentially applicable would be in WP:FUTURE re: "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors." And yet, even then, that doesn't pass the smell test - Kotaku discussing Antonblast as part of upcoming indie games, Hardcore Gamer identifying it as one of the best games at PAX East 2023, discussed as part of an article about the game that inspired it, IGN citing it as one of the "games to watch" at Guerrilla Collective Showcase 2023, and Nintendo Life, Hardcore Gamer, and Destructoid writing articles about its announcement and impression of the game's demo. That's clearly going beyond simply news about its existence. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Not to expand the point to tedium, but to try and explain where the above comment is coming from, the WP:NOT categories strike me as an expression of WP:GNG for notable articles on future releases to be founded on sufficient and independent secondary coverage. I do think this is narrowly established, but one could say that many of the sources are repetitions of the primary source, being the publisher's press kit. In these situations, best practice to avoid WP:TOOSOON would be to ensure secondary coverage can express an reliable and independent perspective on the game, although my view is similar to yours that this threshold has been met given that the demo has had some reactions.ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't necessarily oppose a TOOSOON verdict, as it's not, say, Starfield. I think it barely passes, but I just find the invocation of the two guidelines strange and inaplicable. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 09:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * All good! Just overthinking a little. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Based on the Destructoid, Hardcore Gamer, IGN and Kotaku source, all of which have actual commentary on the game rather than just regurgitation of press releases. It's not the strongest sourcing ever, but I'd pass it were it a draft. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources provided give it some merit. Not sure how Graywalls' assessment above works to be honest, WP:FUTURE and WP:NOTNEWS doesn't really apply in this case?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2023 (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.