Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/District 187: Sin Streets


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

District 187: Sin Streets

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I was rather startled to find this article had been accepted at AfC, because of the 3 references, 2 are from the company;s web site, and the 3rd is not about the game; and some of the article is even written in the 2nd person. But then I saw that the person who accepted it was the same editor who wrote it. I would have speedied as promotional and A7-web except that I wanted to call attention to this obvious gap in our procedures. (Of course, the result is no worse than writing directly in mainspace, but moves from AfC to mainspace are not easy to identify.)  DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete for a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, but I don't think there's anything we can do about users "accepting" their own submissions. Huon (talk) 03:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See below. Huon (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Although the article appears to be complete on the basis that it contains all of the "necessary" information that one expects in an article about a game, there are issues. First, there is a lack of third party sources, making the majority of the content unverifiable. Second, the majority of the language is subjective and much like that of an advertisement. Third, the language used in the article breaks down several times and is difficult to understand.


 * Delete for unverifiable, advertisement content. DavidLetteer (talk • contribs) 05:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

rep- oh i didn't see carefully this comment. wtf advertisement content did u see??Arghya Roy (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * keep or delete all on wikipedia.but i didn't get a single help:(.

Don't know what's the rush for deletion.I accepted the article for-

source 1- From gamepress, the article is not by the game company or not any personal entry. Gamepress is a non-commercial network for news about games around the world. There were no third party comments. source 2- Netmarble, a subsidiary of CJ Corporation is a is a Korean developer, publisher, and sponsor of free online games. They made this game and released it at September '12 but most of us didn't know there is another korean site by Netmarble and players there are from Korea with more high levels than world.Even their contents are larger than the games official website. had a little confusion about this source. source 3- This is not directly about the game but indirectly about the game. The security system by which the game is protected.This is to express the game's good security system.How this new game is better than other famous fps games like CS,combat force from the sight of security.

"don't know how many reliable sources do u want?why don't u tell the minimum number of sources needed to create an article in the Reliable sources?r u telling me to create sources:(.if there are no other reliable sources about the game then what to do?tried my best,collected and changed non/reliable sources,searched whole google, asked for help in the talk page to find some reliable sources for the article."

(*read Minor edited article)

Arghya Roy (talk) 12:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - the claim that you received no help is flat-out wrong. For example, here I already told you that the first source is a press release and thus not considered reliable. Since then you've found a different host for that press release, but it's still the same press release and the host doesn't make it any more reliable. And here I commented on the "hacking" section that seemed off-topic. By now it cites a "source" which mentions neither District 187 nor hacking, but the most relevant content is still unverifiable and it still has its essay-like qualities when discussing what people should do. And here the reviewer J.s.071991 commented on the types of sources we need. Now apparently there are no good sources on the game - in that case we don't ask you to create sources (that would border on original research, and unless you manage to get the sources you create published with a reputable publisher with some editorial oversight they'd be useless for Wikipedia's purposes anyway), but we simply shouldn't have an article on the topic which appears non-notable. Regarding the number of sources: WP:N requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which is usually interpreted as "more than just one source". Beyond that it becomes less clear and depends on the quality of the sources. Half a dozen passing mentions or primary sources will probably be too little, while two independent reviews by reputable gaming magazines (not just user-submitted reviews!) that provide some detail may be enough. Huon (talk) 13:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Rep- I knew press released are reliable sources-

Scholarship

Shortcut: WP:SCHOLARSHIP

Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. See Wikipedia:No original research. Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been vetted by one or more other scholars. Arghya Roy (talk) 15:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

If my given references are and were not good then how the sources given in the wp game articles Counter-Strike: Global Offensive,Counter-Strike: Condition Zero would capable to fulfill your criteria?with some bad and dead links yes I found a dead link in the article Counter-Strike: Condition Zero, 4 wikipedia links as references in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive .I gave a press release which is my current ref 1 is a press release and a ref(no. 2) in the article Counter-Strike: Condition Zero are taken from same place, mine was press release with no 3rd party comments and their is a type of same with a lot of comments, mine is not accepted but that's totally ok.:confused: Arghya Roy (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Firstly, other insufficiently sourced articles exist, but that's no reason to keep this one. Each article must stand on its own merits. Secondly, your source is a press release and explicitly says so: "This unedited press release is made available courtesy of Gamasutra...". The source for Counter-Strike: Condition Zero is hosted at the same site, but is not a press release but a news article under Gamasutra's editorial control (the comments, though, would not be considered reliable sources). Thirdly, while especially the Counter-Strike: Global Offensive article heavily cites primary sources, both of those also show significant coverage in truly independent, reliable sources, including even a review by the BBC. As an aside, are you confusing press releases with peer-reviewed academic sources? I'm not quite sure what I should say to that beyond pointing out our articles on these subjects: Press releases, peer review. Those have nothing in common. Huon (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

All links I have found on the web, pls check these-

1. http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/district-187-sin-streets 2. http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/08/27/gamescom-2012-district-187-hounds-and-monarch/ 3. http://my.mmosite.com/3181232/blog/ritem/district_187_sin_streets_ammunitions_thoughts_on_the_core_gameplay.html 4. http://www.gamerevolution.com/preview/district-187-sin-streets 5. http://www.gaminglives.com/2012/09/11/cj-games-globals-mmo-future/ 6. http://mmohuts.com/review/district-187 7. http://www.destructoid.com/district-187-sin-streets-now-available-on-steam-239460.phtml 8. http://www.gamesradar.com/district-187-sin-streets-preview-free-play-gang-warfare/ 9. http://www.gamesradar.com/district-187-sin-streets-preview-free-play-gang-warfare/ 10. http://www.gamershell.com/companies/cj_internet/1049243.html 11. http://www.zam.com/story.html?story=31136 12. http://www.mmoreviews.com/district-187-sin-streets-is-now-live/ 13. http://www.allthatsepic.com/Game_Reviews-detail/district-187-sin-streets-review/ 14. http://www.gamegrin.com/game/preview/district-187-sin-streets-gamescom-2012-preview 15. http://www.gamershell.com/companies/cj_internet/1018394.html 16. http://d187.mmosite.com/news/11202012/district_187_sin_streets_launches_with_massive_content_update_unveiling_new_maps_and_game_mdes.shtml

I have changed all the refs in the article .Tell me what can I do more? If everything fulfill your criteria then how to stop deletion? Will I have to resubmit it? Arghya Roy (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - I've rewritten the article from scratch based on what I considered the best of the sources provided by Arghya Roy. Many of the others were blogs, user-submitted or self-published sources, and yet another copy of that same press release - which is still a press release no matter where it's hosted. I would have liked to use the GameGrin preview for a "reception" section, but I found no indication that it's a reliable source and not just some random people publishing their personal opinion. Sources are still rather weak, but since the game was released one or maybe two weeks ago (sources disagree on that; I went with Metacritic), maybe we'll get some better reviews as opposed to previews. Huon (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Rep-

I don't know why did u make the article too short,what's wrong with that?why the hacking section was deleted?it's about the security system of the game.my straight opinion is i don't like it.I need answer.You guys had problems with my sources, why did u do these major changes without confirming me?why u edited the picture section, where is the requirements?I want my own written article back.

Another thing that the game i'm going to tell u that i'm playing the game from september '12, so i took it but the game's official release date is 20th Nov '12, not 27th. Arghya Roy (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've replied at Talk:District 187: Sin Streets, the correct venue for what's basically a content dispute. Huon (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep for well sourced, well written, well designed page. Need to expand introduction section.ANIMAXWATER (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC) — ANIMAXWATER (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 
 * comment 2 of the 5 references are still from the company itself. Zam is a minor announcement. That leave the gamestar and gameerevolution articles. Both of them are pre-release reviews, saying the game might become notable. I don't think that's enough. If they write about it and say it has become important, they would be another matter.  DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep I cleaned the article up a bit more, added more refs, and replaced a primary source with a secondary one. The game appears notable per the GNG, and it was developed by a major South Korean studio and was made available through the widely popular Steam platform. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * AFC Comment Regarding the AFC of this article, it was actually created by User:Arghya Roy, declined [ here] by AFC helper User:J.s.071991, then it was self-approved by User:Arghya Roy after making [ a few changes]. The article DGG nominated would definitely be considered WP:JUNK, but the article as it stands now is passable to me. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Eh, it passes GNG by a hair (much obliged to those who saved it). Some of the sources are still shaky per WP:VG/S and the legit coverage is drenched in PR-speak, but there's enough here for inevitable future growth (WP:TIND). czar   &middot;   &middot;  18:24, 17 December 2012 (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.