Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dino D-Day


 * 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. Sources are sufficient. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 10:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Dino D-Day

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Let's settle this pointless fight. This is the article I made... I believe the topic of nazi dinosaurs are notable. The sources agree. I have lots of sources here. Are they? Merrill Stubing (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The game itself is notable, not the fact that it consists of nazi dinosaurs. The game is being released on Steam later this month, and multiple notable game sites have commented and previewed it. I do not think that the article should be deleted. Kevinmon•talk•trib 04:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you doing? are you now requesting deletion? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You seemed to want process so I started the process to delete an article to settle this. Next time don't accuse innocent people of vandalizing. I would still like an apology for that. Merrill Stubing (talk) 05:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You won't get it. Are you just having a bored day or are you here to annoy people? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, what is your problem? Sorry I decided to help this stupid website every couple days or weeks. Fuck you too. Harass me some more why don't you Merrill Stubing (talk) 05:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you step away from your computer and get some sleep or whatever helps you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you stop harassing others. Merrill Stubing (talk) 05:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Merrill, consider this your final warning about being WP:CIVIL in discussions here. You wrote something, someone else thought the topic was not viable, someone else said it was and tried to help keep the article from being deleted. If you don't want to work with others collaboratively, then Wikipedia is probably not for you. However, there are numerous ways to resolve disputes and try to figure out why someone said something (and it's possible the other person used an excessively loaded word or something). Again, you need to be willing to discuss--that really is the primary way anything happens here. DMacks (talk) 05:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine, but seriously--this guy accused me of vandalism and refused to apologize. That is bullying. Merrill Stubing (talk) 05:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)This should be closed as a speedy keep, under the first point: "The nominator...fails to advance an argument for deletion." The nominator actually wants the article kept, and is forcing this nomination because it was recommended for speedy deletion (which has since been removed). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Administrative decline for speedy-close keep-per-policy, as LordVetinari has now advanced an actual basis for deletion. DMacks (talk) 05:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete Lacks significant coverage in third-party reliable sources (i.e. exclusing anything resulting from press releases for a new product). The game doesn't exist yet, severely retarding any claim to notability. LordVetinari (talk) 05:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I argue that this edit clearly shows third-party reliable sources that are covering this game. Granted, the information or inline citations are not yet included in the article, but there is notability. Kevinmon•talk•trib 05:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Reply
 * merely briefly describes and promotes the game
 * merely briefly describes and promotes the game
 * merely briefly describes and promotes the game
 * merely briefly describes the game
 * merely briefly describes and promotes the game
 * merely briefly describes and promotes the game
 * merely briefly describes the game
 * Inaccessible
 * Not in English, therefore inaccessible as a source
 * Not in English, therefore inaccessible as a source
 * Not in English, therefore inaccessible as a source
 * Not in English, therefore inaccessible as a source
 * Not in English, therefore inaccessible as a source
 * Not in English, therefore inaccessible as a source
 * Not in English, therefore inaccessible as a source
 * Not in English, therefore inaccessible as a source
 * Not in English, therefore inaccessible as a source
 * Not in English, therefore inaccessible as a source
 * merely briefly describes the game
 * An extremely brief mention
 * Not in English, therefore inaccessible as a source
 * Not in English, therefore inaccessible as a source
 * Not in English, therefore inaccessible as a source
 * merely briefly describes the game
 * merely briefly describes the game
 * merely briefly describes the game
 * An extremely brief mention
 * merely briefly describes the game
 * Twitter? Seriously??
 * merely briefly describes the game
 * merely briefly describes the game
 * None of these sources seem to do anything other than repeat a press release. Some are promotional. Some are inaccessible, therefore hindering verifiability. The game appears to break new ground in a genre that has been done to death (see ) but, as the game hasn't yet been released, there is no evidence that the gaming community considers it thus. In other words, there is no verifiable evidence that the gaming community considers this game notable. That a group of bloggers and journalists say its cool doesn't demonstrate anything other than that it exists. LordVetinari (talk) 05:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No opinion on the game or the quality of the sources, I haven't checked, but "Not in English, therefore inaccessible as a source" is an invalid argument. Articles may be completely based on sources not in English, and these sources are just as valid to determine notability as any other. Fram (talk) 08:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have been clearer, but I did say "inaccessible" not "invalid". As I mentioned in the last paragraph, some of the sources are inaccessible and this hinders verifiability. One source is inaccessible due to a server error. Others are inaccessible due to a language barrier. Therefore, until those latter sources translated, we only have guesswork and the word of the editor listing those sources that they are reliable. LordVetinari (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's how sources work. A "language barrier" does not make a source inaccessible. They are easily translated either by a user or through machine translation that is good enough to understand the meaning behind the sources. Furthermore, yes, you are relying on the word of the editor, that's what assuming good faith means. We do that all the time for articles that have external non-internet sources (such as books). Most featured articles have references that are almost entirely not "accessible" by us online, but we assume good faith that the editor who put the information in did it correctly unless proven otherwise. None of that changes the reliability of the sources or the notability they confer onto their subject. Silver  seren C 10:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Userfy so Merill can learn what an article looks like (as opposed to some pointy mess). Then move it back when it's ready. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice if the game proves notable after release. Most of the sources mention the game because of the novelty of the concept, but until it actually exists is seems premature to create an article.  Sea photo Talk  05:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Er, so by that sort of thinking any game not yet out shouldn't have an article? What about List_of_video_games_in_development? They all have pages Merrill Stubing (talk) 05:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The game actually is a mod of Half-Life 2 and is a first-person shooter. Source Kevinmon•talk•trib 05:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but not every game in development (or even available) is notable, just like not every movie or book or musical album. Notability is based on a number of factors,not just a good premise.  Sea photo Talk  05:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep - I updated the article with sources directly from Valve Corporation and from reputable sources both reviewing the game's features and what it will include when it is released. I believe that in its current state, and based on the references available, that the article should be kept and expanded upon when the game is released on Steam on April 8, 2011. Kevinmon•talk•trib 06:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Close the curtain on this sorry AfD (i.e. Keep). I added two references to show that independent secondary sources were covering the thing. I see a lot of shrapnel above about other sources but didn't bother to go through it. The thing is being covered by the press, so it's notable, end of story. Wnt (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Somebody sent this afd to slashdot, seems to be a habit... 75.57.242.120 (talk) 10:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * *facepalms* I completely understand talking about the Old Man Murray article, but seriously, making a topic thread about this? I mean, I don't feel like voting right now (it would be a Keep), but the rationale in that thread is just stupid. Nazi dinosaurs have nothing to do with notability. Silver  seren C 10:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Incubate Until more sources become available (which is quite likely). TYelliot  &#124;  Talk  &#124;  Contribs  12:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  –MuZemike 14:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep – I think the sources given sufficiently establish notability for the article; they provide significant enough coverage. Merrill Stubing, you are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Knock it off. –MuZemike 14:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfy It is a crystal ball article about something which has not yet been released, so it is prematurely in mainspace as an article. All the references (each amounting to "Way Kewl! Nazi Dinosaurs!) appear to be just one splash of coverage, mostly in blogs which may not qualify as reliable sources, deriving from a press release, and WP:NOTNEWS could be applied. Edison (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 *  Incubate Weak Keep* Maybe hatch the eggs at Jurassic Park. Agreed with Edison. Many games go into development but never see light of day. Anyone played Duke Nukem Forever its only been in production since 1996 so any day now we can expect to play it. Once this game has gone gold then maybe userfy the article. As it stands it needs a bunch of work.  Golgofrinchian  (talk)  18:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC) * Changed it to weak keep due to its pending release. It does need some work, but I believe now it has some legs. Golgofrinchian   (talk)  23:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Its already set for sale next month. Merrill Stubing (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Pre-orders are sold and the game is on the Steam store to be released in two weeks. The beta has been released for two weeks already. Kevinmon•talk•trib 20:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether or not a game goes on sale is completely irrelevant to its notability. If a game is discussed in reliable sources and never gets released, then it becomes a famous example of vaporware.  We're not supposed to be making absolute judgments about what is worth covering based on personal biases - Wikipedia is intended as much for the investor who is wondering whether he will lose everything he invests in a game, or the programmer looking for a dead project to restart, as it is for the player.  This is not a "dumbed-down" encyclopedia meant only for the casual consumer. Wnt (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I think you may find some people do not believe Wikipedia should be allowed to be a platform to promote a game. If Valve is using Wikipedia to help shore up venture capital I think they have other issues at hand. That is not to say WP cannot be used to highlight games, quite the contrary. As long as the page follows the WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines then I think you will find it will be accepted whole heartedly, at least by we gamers. What is going on under the surface is there is some very heated debate and attitudes that are causing some strife.


 * I have been on the side of the author a few times. It does tend to "freak one out" when they see so much discussion about an article. Heck there has been more written on this page than the article by a factor of 3 at least. What this page is, is a way to build consensus for a possible deletion. There is no set rule that says they will delete it due to what has been written. The tone of the first couple of posts tends to get people riled up. This can have a negative effect on the articles chance for life. Maybe if the author and his supporters can take a less aggressive tone, it can allow cooler heads to discuss this.


 * It is my opinion (and that is all that anyone has done sofar), that the game being this close to release, that it is mentioned in several independent places, it does have some legs. You will see there is more support here than I think you and the author believe. Its just a bunch of people voicing their opinions. We are all Wikipedia editors to some extent, nothing fancy. The adage that you can get more bees with honey does help in this case. Although maybe a beer or two would help grease the wheels. ;)  Golgofrinchian  (talk)  23:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I do object when I feel like the FAC process is used to promote video games, i.e. to feature them prominently in coordination with a recent release. Though it may also be true of mere article creation, I don't have a problem with that: everyone has a reason for participating in Wikipedia and bothering to create an article.  "Promoting" the product by creating an article using reliable sources is a fair reward, because everyone can do the same thing.
 * When I mentioned investors, I didn't mean literally investors in this particular project; rather, anyone who might look back at a variety of accomplished versus "vaporware" projects to try to reason out what the differences are. Wnt (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep now, per golgofrinchan. –SJ + 19:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep terrible afd, and enough sources for the article.--Sloane (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2011 (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.