Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H1Z1


 * 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The result was   WP:SNOW keep (also withdrawn by nominator). (non-admin closure) satellizer   (talk  -  contributions)  01:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

H1Z1

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Withdrawn by the nominator'. Someone close this. Anupmehra - Let's talk!  21:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Earlier written as an unsourced unambiguous advertisement. One user removed G11, and added a reference. This article is about a game released yesterday by Sony Entertainment, perhaps qualify WP:TOOSOON. As it was released by reputed company Sony Entertainment, It was attracted by media sources. Wikipedia is not a newspaper explains, "while news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". Anupmehra - Let's talk!  12:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep This appears to be a major title release from a major player in the gaming industry. It attracted media attention because major releases from major companies are notable.  Not having an article about this title would be as silly as not having an article about The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2, a film that is not due for release for almost two years, but which is still notable.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited. Just because it was released by a "major player in the gaming industry", the subject doesn't turn itself notable. And, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has never been considered a good rationale to !vote keep/delete. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  13:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The current content of the article is not great, but this is a high-profile video game title and is absolutely encyclopedic. -- MisterHand  (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 13:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't think that WP:TOOSOON applies here. It is officially announced by one of the largest companies in the world and will have unique properties.  This is going to move beyond the news stage and I look forward to the expansion of this article from it's current sparse look. - Pmedema (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment by the nominator - WP:DUCKSEASON. All keep !votes here, has a common rationale, that it is notable "because it is released by Sony Entertainment" and because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. *ignore WP:NOTINHERITED* Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  14:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Sources that may or may not exist in the future don't count.  We need sources that exist now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment A simple Google search on the term "H1Z1" will show that this game's announcement has lit up the internet, with coverage in PC Gamer, IGN, Gamespot, Metro UK, Shack News, EuroGamer, and N4G, to name but a few. I'm at work now, and my office internet policy forbids me access to these sites, so I can't readily evaluate them aside from the Google preview snatch, but the amount of coverage for this game release is substantial.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I feel the article's subject is notable enough to warrant an article, but only just. Rilech (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I have expanded the article a little bit, adding reference and infobox. Rilech (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - It seems fair to assume we'll will soon have enough info to build a valuable article about this AAA game. Some good coverage already: Polygon (2), GameSpot,PC Gamer, others... It would be annoying to go through the deletion/restoration processes just because of a debatable WP:TOOSOON application, that will anyway be made irrelevant in the weeks to come. --JimeoWan (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment by the nominator - When we'll have secondary, independent coverage rather than the "one-day-release-event-coverage", we'll restore this article (may be at the end of the month?). All sources are either press-releases or a simple media-coverage of the release-event of a game by "Sony Entertainment". It, for now, is more suitable for Wikinews not Wikipedia. Oh! wait, sources are on their way and would be reaching here anytime soon!, is NOT a reason to keep this article for now. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  15:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * All in good faith, I can't find which policy backs these arguments. As far as I can tell, nothing prevents early/recent coverage from being enough to justify an article. In general I'd tend to compare the current situation with this movie-related policy, which seems to be on the "Keep" side. --JimeoWan (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Rilech (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - There's already enough third party coverage out there to justify an article. Rather than wasting time deleting and recreating, we ought to just work on improving how it is now. Sergecross73   msg me   16:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I may not have made this myself and opted to wait on more sources, but there was definitely enough interest (more than just reiterating the press release) to justify notability and thus this should be kept, even if its far out from release. --M ASEM (t) 16:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Since there's a naysayer or two aggressively against it, I'll back up the claims of sources. Below are all sources that have consensus to be deemed reliable/usable per discussions linked at WP:VG/S, and have dedicated articles (not passing mentions) discussing the game in significant detail:
 * http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/10/5600294/H1Z1-mmo-coming-4-6-weeks
 * http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/04/10/sony-reveals-new-mmo-h1z1
 * http://www.polygon.com/2014/4/9/5598202/h1z1-zombie-mmo-sony-online-entertainment
 * http://www.polygon.com/2014/4/9/5599530/sony-online-entertainment-spills-details-on-post-apocalyptic-mmo-h1z1
 * http://metro.co.uk/2014/04/10/first-footage-of-h1z1-sonys-zombie-apocalypse-mmo-4694365/
 * http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/04/10/soe-shows-h1z1-its-new-zombie-mmo/
 * http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-04-09-sony-online-entertainments-myserious-h1z1-project-unveiled-tonight
 * http://www.gamespot.com/articles/sony-reveals-new-post-apocalyptic-mmo-game-h1z1/1100-6418884/
 * http://www.vg247.com/2014/04/09/h1z1-teaser-site-opens-sony-online-entertainments-new-project-to-be-revealed-soon/

Plenty of sources, plenty enough content to start up an article. Sergecross73  msg me   16:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, Comment by the nominator - Well, people have been more than sure, that, it'd be notable sometime after, and it is a waste of time to delete and create the same article! So keep it. Good one. I do not care for any person's time being wasted to delete and re-create this article. If people do care for time being wasted to delete and re-create an article, they should open a RfC to abandon AfD, ProD and CSD processes. Coming back to the topic, Article is about a game released yesterday by a company, many person seem to be a fan of, doesn't meet notability standard. All sources, are "release-event-source". I would argue, people here are trying to establish one event notability. Yes, the game is notable for one event, for being released by the Sony Entertainment. Look, it is Abc news, and a game has been released or is about to release, by the company Sony Entertainment, and it follows all where as it is plague. Its feature made known by the company is, XXXX (page full, substantial coverage?). All sources do mention the same content, their ways! Bottom line, it should be deleted because it doesn't satisfy Wikipedia notability guideline. One event notability and future sources, has never been an acceptable argument, to keep an article. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  19:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No. What you're saying would apply if the articles were simply. "Sony announces video game H1z1, will release more details next month". That's not what the sources supplied are though. They're all multi-paragraph articles dedicated entirely to the topic. They may reference a press release, but none are actual press releases, but rather, info written by the respective journalists. You're setting the bar far higher than what the WP:GNG denotes, and that's why no one is agreeing with you. Sergecross73   msg me   20:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm no one to set GNG bar higher or lower than, what present it is. If ever, it'd be done, would be done by the community using consensus, not by any single person. Every person reserve their right to disagree with me or anyone. I'm just not agree with people, who here arguing to keep the present article as, it is a waste of time to "delete and recreate", hence keep it, "Future sources" would be coming, hence keep it, "WP:Otherstuffexists", hence keep it. I simply can not accept these rationale to go agree with the people here. No one actually is presenting a valid counter argument here, I say, it fails GNG, whatever sources are, one-event-source (even multiple reliable sources), one-event-notability doesn't warrant an article, it was released yesterday, might be a case of WP:Toonsoon, it is presumed to be notable here, because it was released by the Sony entertainment, well, WP:Notinherited. It surely may be notable in future (next day, week or month), but I am not in favor to keep it till then. If it has to be kept, I'd like to see a solid argument. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  20:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're not citing WP:NOTNEWS correctly. That applies to events, not products. This article isn't about the event of the reveal, but rather, it's about the product itself. (Otherwise it would be titled something like Sony's reveal of H1Z1 video game or something ludicrous like that.) NOTNEWS is to keep there from being an article every time a local news station does a story about routine petty crimes or a story about kittens being stuck in a tree. Not products, like this.
 * Also, you're not summarizing my stance very well. From a practical standpoint, I think its a waste of time to delete. On a policy-based standpoint, it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, the most direct following of the GNG there is, and that's why I feel it should be kept. Sergecross73   msg me   20:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment Why don't we focus our attention on making the article reach standards instead of arguing whether it is already there or not. There is much more productive things we can do, besides, I don't think anyone can debate that this article will be created again if it gets deleted anyway, because sources are abundant and nobody can deny that, and a ton of information has been released, and nobody can deny that. I just guess the point of this comment is perhaps we should devote this energy to bettering the article itself. Rilech (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Article has a title, "H1Z1" not "Sony's reveal of H1Z1 video game", hence it does have nothing to do with the event thing? Contents and sources are all about the event, a new game has been released and it is said to have following interesting features. This is all this article and sources, about. This way, it relates itself to NOTNEWS. It'd exempt itself from NOTNEWS and reach GNG only, if it find its mention in multiple reliable sources that doesn't deal with the only release-event and discuss the product on behalf of themselves not press-release. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  21:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * - I'll be happy to improve the present article myself, but it'd be all about the event, how it was released, and what sources did cover the release-event. One needs to wait some time long to get sources on other aspects of the product, like, review of H1Z1 by XXX, good/bad game, H1Z1 UI rocks/sucks, blah blah blah by AAA, BBB and many sources respectively. By the way, what improvements do you guess, is missing and should be made? Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  21:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand your argument perfectly, friend. What I am saying is that in my opinion, as well as an administrator who has already said what I am saying to you, as well as all the "keeps" that have been presented on the article, agree that it meets the criteria according to Wikipedia standards and articles that have already been kept in the past. If you want, I can find you 1000 old versions of articles showing what they looked like when they were first created and a lot would be sub-par to this article. It completely is backed by reliable sources about the reveal. Also, it wasn't necessarily an "event" or an official press conference. It was a developer explaining the game and what it is, which has been covered extensively in many of the articles that presented, which are RS in accordance with those listed at its associated WikiProject. Rilech (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know what else to tell you other than, "No, you're wrong." I'll just let the consensus form unless/until a different argument arises. Sergecross73   msg me   23:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to argue if you disagree with this. Anyway, at this point, I'll say the gist of the debate is: can we can safely assume, from the existing sources, that the game itself will be notable? --JimeoWan (talk) 08:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Let's try to summarize the arguments here.
 * Keep: WP:GNG (significant coverage in reliable, independant sources)
 * Delete: WP:TOOSOON (unknown release date, not much to include yet), WP:SPECULATION (we can't tell yet whether the game itself will be notable)
 * Keep non-arguments: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (don't justify this article by comparing it to others), WP:NOTINHERITED (the fact that the game is by Sony is not enough to make it deserve an article)
 * Delete non-arguments: WP:NOTNEWS (the article is not about an event but a game, the fact that sources are recent and mainly written with the same press release as primary source is not related)
 * I don't think we need to assume it will be notable. Even if nothing ever comes of the game, it will have been notable given its existing coverage. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is precisely what I had meant to say as well. Sergecross73   msg me   15:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per Sergecross73 and the multiple independent reliable sources he's located that cover the topic in depth. I agree with JimeoWan's summary and frankly "Keep: WP:GNG" is adequate and sufficient rationale to keep. TOOSOON is an essay, not a guideline like GNG, and CRYSTAL (AKA WP:SPECULATION) doesn't apply because this is a demonstrably verifiable topic. -Thibbs (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, but this needs some work. So far it looks to have some good reliable sources backing it, enough to meet the GNG in my eyes.  It absolutely does need more content, plenty of touchup, and may be a little soon, but I think we're just enough over the threshold of notability here, and that's coming from a self-identified deletionist-mergist-redirectionist.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 02:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Snowball Keep It already received significant coverage in reliable sources. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:27, 13 April 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.