Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NEStalgia


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

NEStalgia

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )


 * Delete A game for BYOND, a website which failed to reach Wikipedia notability on it's own merits. Has players within the very low triple digits during peak hours. Games on websites such as Kongregate with tens to hundreds of times the player count lack notability to reach Wikipedia article status, this one appears to lack anything noteworthy and therefore deserves no special treatment. ZeroOneThousand (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC) — ZeroOneThousand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * To clarify, the fact that the game's engine fails to meet Wikipedia notability on it's own merits is not the only reason I believe this game fails to be notable. Every source for the game's notability appears to be an advertisement which can be summarized as "This is an 8-bit game, check it out". The Wikipedia page looks to have been created as an advertisement for the game and add credibility, which has no truly noteworthy coverage elsewhere. The fact that the active playerbase barely breaks double digits only further throws it's notability into question, considering that many larger MMOs do not quality for notability. My concern is that this article was created only to provide enough notability for the game to be seen favorably in the eyes of potential distributors. In my opinion, this article exists to create notability, as opposed to documenting existing notability. ZeroOneThousand (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * A game can not be held back by the opinions and notability of it's engine any more than a son can be held back by the success of his father. NEStalgia has more than enough notability and third party sources to be credible and this is nothing more than a personal vendetta against the author. This article has been here for well over a year and it's kind of obvious that it's subject for removal now after the drama contained around the Something Awful community and the game's position on Steam Greenlight. The fact of the matter is that this shouldn't even be a discussion, personal bias towards the game shouldn't effect it's position on wikipedia any more than personal opinions of Hitler preventing him from being taught about in history classes. 142.204.70.21 (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:LONGTIME. -The Bushranger One ping only 03:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep: notability tentatively established by the third-party sources, but I'm wary, with how close in publishing date the sources are, that they're puff-PR releases. Still, I haven't had the time to look over the sources, so I'll default to "keep" for now. Sceptre (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with ZeroOneThousand, if BYOND doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, then it doesn't make sense that NEStalgia would either. A case might be brought up if it manages to be released on Steam, but until then I would say delete. 66.87.106.78 (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 *  Neutral, leaning towards keep "Notability is not inherited" goes both ways. As long as the notability of this game is not predicated on the notability of the website (and the sources show that it's not), the website's lack of notability does not affect the game's notability.  That said, I'm unsure whether I would consider this game notable or not; it has multiple articles in the gaming press (such as it is), but the articles basically consist of "It's an 8-bit MMO, try it" with little else of substance, so I'm not sure how significant the coverage is.  The article authors appear to be regular editors, not the people who made the game, but I'm not sure how much even that means as far as independence is concerned.  If I were forced to choose, I'd probably say "keep why not", but it's very marginal at best. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: with the new sources added, I think that there's enough to avoid deletion. I still don't know how independent the gaming review/news sites really are (I'm a skeptic of the video game industry, I guess), but they are nominally independent at the very least, and the sheer volume is certainly enough.  Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The notability of BYOND is irrelevant. The article has a couple of decent references - shouldn't be too hard to get more with its popularity. Murrawhip (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep There are clearly enough references - each saying mostly unique things about NEStalgia. These are notable sources, and verifiable. This was only put up for deletion due to butthurt users and internet drama. The article has existed fine for over a year now, until the game was put up on Steam's Greenlight. Tako (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep There are now 13 different independent sources from the past 18 months. Most of these are notable, verifiable sources such as PCWorld, Game Informer and Destructoid. The development tools used to create NEStalgia aren't relevant one way or the other: this is a standalone game that does not require the BYOND software in order to play. — Zeldaquest2 (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)  — Zeldaquest2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep - Over a half-decent external mention that were not self-generated, and there's a whole of a lot less notable, less verified things than NEStalgia on Wikipedia. Seriously, do you really think NEStalgia is on a different tier than, say, Project Zomboid?  Frankly, an argument something shouldn't be included because of the relative lack of popularity of the platform in which was created holds about as much water as not including something on Wikipedia because it was written in Sanskrit.  If you guys are determined to cite BYOND's article removal as the reason to remove NESTalgia, it seems to me that the mistake was in removing BYOND's article to begin with, as it's about on the same tier as Game Maker.  For that matter, go ahead and add an article for Space Station 13 - I'm sure you can dig up enough links to be an external mention about it. (71.193.145.233 (talk)) — 71.193.145.233 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep - Holy SPAs, Batman. That aside though, I believe there's clearly enough here to establish sufficient notability for the article to be retained. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I feel this falls under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam (Advertisement) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided - the page links to his personal blog, his game forum, and his personal site to download the game. Several of the links are even dead.  From the sources listed that work, there doesn't seem to be a neutral stance.  It honestly feels like self promotion. Biodomes (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC) — Biodomes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. The game is reviewed in dedicated articles from multiple mainstream gaming magazines. That alone qualifies it for notability.  Contrary to the assertions of some SPAs here, the number of people actually playing it is irrelevant; there could be 0 players and the game would still be notable for attracting sufficient independent press coverage. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The content in the sources is a bit flimsy, but receiving that much coverage in mainstream media is enough for notability — Frankie (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bushranger. Whatever individual concerns may exist regarding the independence of journalism in the video games industry, the community generally recognises the majority of the secondary material listed in the article as reliable, namely PC World, Joystiq, Destructoid, Kotaku, The Escapist, Indie Game Magazine, and Game Informer. Mephistophelian (talk) 06:58, 7 September 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.