Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franchise Hockey Manager (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. There doesn't appear to be clear agreement on whether the references provided are from reliable sources or not. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Franchise Hockey Manager
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nominating procedurally instead of a G4 speedy. Previous AFD was closed as delete because the game had not yet been released. Because the argument was mainly that the game had not been released, it's possible it now meets WP:GNG and it deserves a second go. § FreeRangeFrog croak 04:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment I am putting this at the top of the page so it's easily seen. I have edited this article and included references to the following sites:


 * PopMatters: An editor said below that it is a reliable source.
 * Sportsnet and TSN (The Sports Network): Both are TV and radio networks in Canada that also operate web sites, magazines, and other media outlets. Both have their own Wikipedia pages.
 * MacNews: Has an editorial staff: http://www.macnews.com/aboutus
 * Operation Sports: Has an editorial staff too: http://www.operationsports.com/about.php

I could also include a link to the review published by XGN, which is a Metacritic-approved site, although it's in a foreign language. Do Metacritic-approved sites count?user:Bradcwriter

This article should not be deleted because, as you said, the game has been released and it meets the guidelines. More references can be added, if necessary.User talk:Bradcwriter — Preceding undated comment added 16:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:V. I found a single review, but that still doesn't meet WP:GNG. All of the other sources I found—including sources generally found to be reliable by WikiProject Video games—were trivial or primary/press releases. Woodroar (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is a list of reviews of FHM 2014:

http://www.allhabs.net/blog/2013/09/18/video-game-review-franchise-hockey-manager/ http://baseballrumors101.blogspot.com/2013/09/nbpa-franchise-hockey-manager-review.html?spref=tw http://dynastysportsempire.com/game-review-franchise-hockey-manager/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTwBv9TIUKI http://www.outofeight.info/2014/03/franchise-hockey-manager-2014-gameplay.html http://www.faceoff-factor.com/8general-hockey/4891/game-review-franchise-hockey-manager http://www.sportsnet.ca/590/got-game/what-exactly-is-franchise-hockey-manager/ http://www.gamesreviews.com/pc/pc-reviews/07/franchise-hockey-manager-review/ http://gamesided.com/2014/03/21/franchise-hockey-manager-receives-major-update/ (a news article, actually) http://gamingtrend.com/game_reviews/put-penalty-box-franchise-hockey-manager-2014-review/ http://gmgames.org/2014/04/06/review-franchise-hockey-manager-2014-pc-mac/ http://hockeyhotspot.net/my-really-really-late-review-of-franchise-hockey-manager/ http://www.incgamers.com/2013/09/incgamers-plays-franchise-hockey-manager-2014 http://theshelternetwork.com/franchise-hockey-manager-2014/ http://www.jumptogamer.com/reviews/franchise-hockey-manager-2014-review/ http://lastwordonsports.com/2013/09/04/game-review-franchise-hockey-manager-14/ http://lastwordonsports.com/2014/05/23/game-review-franchise-hockey-manager/ http://www.neogamer.de/spiele/franchise-hockey-manager/specials/knallhart-ausgenockt/2724/422.html http://www.neogamer.de/spiele/franchise-hockey-manager/specials/fazit/knallhart-ausgenockt/2724/422,2.html http://www.operationsports.com/reviews/720/franchise-hockey-manager-review-pc/ http://www.play-zine.com/PLAY!Zine74-Jul2014.pdf http://www.popmatters.com/review/175647-franchise-hockey-manager-2014/ http://rgz.ca/reviews/franchise-hockey-manager/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPTfN24KqQU http://www.stelzy.com/ootp-developments-jumps-into-the-hockey-world/ http://thehockeyguys.net/franchise-hockey-manager-2014-reviewing-potential-gem/ http://twscritic.com/2014/03/31/pc-game-review-franchise-hockey-manager/ http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/scott_cullen/?id=433263 (at end of column) http://www.xgn.nl/review/57821/franchise-hockey-manager-2014

Here's the Metacritic page: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/franchise-hockey-manager-2014 Bradcwriter — Bradcwriter (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * None of which are "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as required by WP:V. We have an excellent page on reliable sources (especially as applied to video games) at WikiProject Video games/Sources. Woodroar (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. While the sites listed may not be on the list indicated, they're still 3rd party sites. Bradcwriter
 * They need to be reliable though. Most of these are not... Sergecross73   msg me  02:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * How are reliable sources defined, then? I've looked at the page that lists them, but who decided which site is reliable and which isn't? For example, why is Operation Sports considered unreliable? And the comment above that a single review was found is false, as shown above.User:Bradcwriter — Preceding undated comment added 17:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at the reliable sources page a bit more, I don't see why most of the sources listed above are unreliable, as you've claimed. Yes, the YouTube links run afoul of the reliability definition, as does the stelzy.com link, which is a personal blog, but the rest of them are sports and gaming sites (or sports gaming sites, like Operation Sports) that have editors and such. They're not extremist sites or personal blogs or anything else that Wikipedia defines as unreliable.User:Bradcwriter 10:13, 17 August 2014 (PST)
 * Uh, you realize that I linked to the definition of a reliable source on the comment you responded to, right? Do the sources have a clearly defined editorial staff? Writers with actual credentials as journalists? An editorial policy? A history for fact checking? Or are they just random self-proclaimed enthusiasts with little to none of those things. Popmatters qualifies...but just about the rest of these do not.  Sergecross73   msg me  02:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you, I'm aware you linked to it. Should I post links to the pages that list the editorial staffs of the sites? And beyond that, am I expected to research the writers' backgrounds (do reviewers typically have to have journalistic credentials?) How do I know what their editorial policies are, as well as their history for fact checking? And how do you define "random self-proclaimed enthusiasts"? I realize that a Blogspot site would qualify as that, but what about Operation Sports and many of the others? You've already said that PopMatters counts, and XGN is a Metacritic-approved site, so do those two count?User:Bradcwriter


 * Comment - Popmatters is definitely a reliable source. I didn't realize they covered videogames, they're usually a music website, but regardless. Sergecross73   msg me  02:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - as illustrated above, there are a good few reliable sources available, which seem to me to be sufficient to meet verifiability and the general notability guidelines. -- Adam Black talk •  contribs  •  uploads  •  logs 19:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Which ones do you find to be reliable? The baseball rumors blogspot? Or the random YouTube link? Most of those example links are not what Wikipedia considers usuable sources... Sergecross73   msg me  02:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Two good reviews could establish WP:GNG. Perhaps someone could cut the long list above to just two, and it would be easier for anyone to judge those. I see sources which do not meet WP:RS.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sergecross73 has already said that Pop Matters counts. How about XGN, which is a Metacritic-approved site? That would be two right there.User:Bradcwriter

http://www.xgn.nl/review/57821/franchise-hockey-manager-2014 http://www.popmatters.com/review/175647-franchise-hockey-manager-2014/ TSN operates TV and radio stations in Canada. That counts, correct? (If not, then I have no idea what could be a reliable source, other than whatever a random Wikipedia editor deems as such.) http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/scott_cullen/?id=433263 (See item #9) Sportsnet operates TV and radio stations in Canada, along with a magazine and whatever else. From their About page: "The multiplatform brand consists of Sportsnet, sportsnet.ca, Sportsnet 590 The FAN, Sportsnet 960 The FAN, Sportsnet magazine, Sportsnet Mobile, Sportsnet NOW, and the Hockey Central app on iPad and Playbook. Sportsnet consists of four regional channels (Sportsnet East, Ontario, West and Pacific), and the nationally-distributed Sportsnet ONE, Sportsnet World, and Sportsnet 360." Again, is that good enough? If not, then, once again, what fits the standard? http://www.sportsnet.ca/590/got-game/what-exactly-is-franchise-hockey-manager/ Operation Sports has an editorial staff: http://www.operationsports.com/about.php Same with Gaming Trend: http://gamingtrend.com/about/ I could probably go through more, but is this enough to fit Wikipedia's guidelines? I get why the guidelines exist, but this whole "define reliable sources" thing seems to be almost arbitrary.User:Bradcwriter — Preceding undated comment added 17:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Okay, PopMatters has been established as a reliable source. XGN is approved by Metacritc. Does that count?
 * For our purposes, a reliable site usually has: a list of staff, statements about editorial policy, a journalist by-line that is clickable and leads to their background and credentials, a number of journalists on staff with backgrounds in legitimate game journalism, won a number of awards for their coverage and/or is frequently praised by other sites for their coverage. They usually don't have: prominent "write for us" links, numerous spelling and grammar mistakes, and frequent "articles" that are really press releases or just written around press releases. These are the things I typically look for when considering a source. We also have Reliable sources/Noticeboard (or the more specific Video game page linked above) to determine reliability/unreliability on a case-by-case basis if a site has not been reviewed. Woodroar (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Instead of speaking in generalities, can someone go through the links I've posted above (the short list, not the long one) and note which ones are okay and which ones aren't and why? Also, sports games can be covered on sports web sites (as well as talk radio and TV news) as well as video game sites -- you can't just look at video game sites in this instance.User:Bradcwriter 14:37, 18 August 2014 (PST)
 * Thats really the job of the person trying to defend the article. However, for a large list of generally accepted sites, look over WP:VG/S. Sergecross73   msg me  02:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I will edit the article and include links to reliable sources, then.user:Bradcwriter — Preceding undated comment added 17:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 20:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)



Comment I put this at the top of the page and am copying it down here since there has been no response to it since I posted it a couple days ago. I have edited this article and included references to the following sites:


 * PopMatters: An editor said below that it is a reliable source.
 * Sportsnet and TSN (The Sports Network): Both are TV and radio networks in Canada that also operate web sites, magazines, and other media outlets. Both have their own Wikipedia pages.
 * MacNews: Has an editorial staff: http://www.macnews.com/aboutus
 * Operation Sports: Has an editorial staff too: http://www.operationsports.com/about.php

I could also include a link to the review published by XGN, which is a Metacritic-approved site, although it's in a foreign language. Do Metacritic-approved sites count?user:Bradcwriter 16:50, 24 August 2014 (Pacific time)
 * No, Metacritic uses both reliable and unreliable sites. The MacNews source is a trivial press release, not useable. The Operation Sports source is better, but I can't find if the author has any journalism background. The TSN source is not about the subject and only mentions it in passing. The Sportsnet source is terrible, to be honest: it basically says "I don't know what this game is, so here's an interview", which essentially pushes it into primary source territory. I'm on the fence about PopMatters, but I'll defer to Sergecross73's opinion just because I'm short on time right now. Woodroar (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ansh666 21:20, 1 September 2014 (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.