Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ni-Oh (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   keep. Without discrediting Qworty or Uzma's arguments, it's quite evident that the sourcing issues might be easily overcome with some effort. Current sourcing details provided do give one confidence of this article's notability promise and so do the keep !votes. Wifione  Message 13:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Ni-Oh
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This seems like a case of WP:CRYSTAL for a game and film project that never came to anything. But I could be wrong, needs looking at by peoplewho know the sector  Spinning Spark  01:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree that's what it looks like, but I think the article just needs to be updated. The game has recently completed the alpha cycle (http://andriasang.com/con261/ni_oh_alpha/), so it shouldn't be much longer. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  02:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The article has been updated to reflect the current state of development. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Its IGN and Kotaku refs are not RS (WP:VG/RL) but I agree that a better effort can be made. There is a line that should be removed/clarified to avoid speculation (per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:VGSCOPE #8) but otherwise it handles the concerns of its last AfD sufficiently. It's a stub. And since it's in development/near release (or sourced as such) and created by well-established dev/pub Team Ninja and Tecmo Koei, it's worth keeping for its notability.  czar  &middot;   &middot;  20:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you're linking to the reference library (archives of gaming magazines); perhaps you intended WikiProject Video games/Sources? Both are listed as reliable sources for WPVG. I'm not sure what sentence/material you're referring to, but if you leave a comment on the talk page I'll try to address it. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  03:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you're right—I confused the two and meant /S. I've struck the area. I still don't think the news blurbs (RS) alone grant the article notability, but the project is notable based off of its creators. If it failed WP:CRYSTAL, it doesn't anymore.  czar  &middot;   &middot;  20:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, I think that's a fair statement. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  22:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  22:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Note - I've added another AfD above, the original article was deleted twice through AFD (and rightly so), and recreated three times against policy. The old text may also have been a copyvio. The version that is currently at that location shares none of the text of the original version, being rewritten from scratch. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  22:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - There's enough coverage in third party reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG, and enough content to establish a pretty good Dev section. It's been officially announced, has a name, and in the alpha stages; I see no valid reason to apply CRYSTAL here. Sergecross73   msg me   00:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - If the release date is unknown this is a case of CRYSTAL BALL. 1.112.77.29 (talk) 07:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC) — 1.112.77.29 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note, the above SPA account appear to have as main purpose voting delete in almost all the Japan-related AfDs. Cavarrone (talk) 08:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Weak Keep:Proves itself to be useful,seems stable.Here are some links,
 * That's totally arbitrary. WP:CRYSTAL specifically only applies to unverifiable information, and even specifies that "dates are not definite until the event actually takes place." The idea that verifiability hinges on whether or not the developer disclosed an arbitrary non-definite date doesn't hold water. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  07:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clear case of WP:CRYSTAL.  What's the point of having the policy if we're never allowed to use it?  Listen, folks:  The future is ALWAYS unverifiable.  That's why it's called "the future."  It makes no sense to say that WP:CRYSTAL applies only to the "unverifiable" future.  It is--literally--a laughable argument, LOL. Qworty (talk) 08:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you quite understand the policy. It's not a reason to go about deleting anything without a release date. It's when nothing is known about the topic and/or so the article resorts to nothing but original research. For instance, if the artice was Untitled Tecmo RPG and the article consisted of "Untitled RPG was announced on October 12, 2012, and fans expect it to release in 2015" - then you'd have a clear-cut case of CRYSTAL. That's not the case here, there's plenty of verified information, by reliable sources that have reported on it.  Sergecross73   msg me   10:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That is impossible in the universe in which we live. We cannot verify anything that has happened "in the future" because the future hasn't happened yet.  The future is by definition unverifiable, which is why the policy WP:CRYSTAL exists.  If/when this item is released, AND if/when it becomes notable per our policies, it will merit an article.  Not before.  Qworty (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not an article about an event that will take place in the future, it is an article about a game that was developed by Koei, that is being developed by Team Ninja, based on a script that was written by Kurosawa. They are planning on releasing that game, but if that does not happen it will not erase history like the prom scene in Back to the Future . The article is written about things that have happened or are happening and those facts have been verified by sources deemed reliable by WikiProject Video games. The only part of the article that could conceivably be targeted by WP:CRYSTAL was the word "upcoming", so I've changed that to "as-yet unreleased". Now tell me which part of the article, exactly, contradicts which part of WP:CRYSTAL? ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  19:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Upon reflection, the prom scene in Back to the Future represents erasing the future. Many apologies to the proponents of responsible temporal causality. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  21:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The phrase "as yet unreleased" makes the entire article deletable under WP:CRYSTAL. I've known a lot of people in my time who have tried to predict the future, usually over trivialities such as this one, and my reply to them is always the same:  "Stop wasting our time; if you really know the future, just give me tonight's Lotto numbers."  The fact is that nobody can predict when this thing is going to come out, or anything else about the future.  That's why WP:CRYSTAL exists, and that's why this article doesn't belong here.  Again, if/when this thing actually comes out, AND if/when it is demonstrated to be notable per our polices, then and only then should we have an article about it. Qworty (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm really trying to understand what you think WP:CRYSTAL is about, and why this article does not meet WP:N. Is it that you think an article should not be written on a product until it is commercially available? If something is worked on but never released, you think that negates any coverage it has received until that point? Or is it that any topic, no matter the coverage, that is tied to an arbitrary future timeframe is not notable until that timeframe has passed? Either way, the logic is flawed, for the reason I previously mentioned. The 2014 Winter Olympics will always be notable even if they never happen, because of the amount of coverage they have already received. Contracts have been made, plans have been drawn, etc. That coverage exists. We cover things because they are notable, they have been noted, notations have been made. We do not know the future so cannot and do not rely on future events to validate inclusion.
 * I was wondering how long it was going to take you to bring up WP:OTHERCRAP. In fact, I was going to ask you not to bring up WP:OTHERCRAP, but I was curious what example you would use for WP:OTHERCRAP.  Regardless, WP:OTHERCRAP is never a reason for inclusion. Qworty (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to be absolutely clear, WP:CRYSTAL means we cannot report on things that will happen, we can only report on things that have happened. The development of this game has happened and is happening (you don't argue that point, correct?). Whether the release of the game will or will not happen is irrelevant to inclusion, as that is not the basis of the article. Obviously you are not arguing that the material is not true until the game is released, at which time it will have always been true. If you don't get the concept or aren't actually reading any of this I should probably stop trying. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  22:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you actually looked at the sourcing? It's REALLY lousy.  It's from seven and eight years ago.  I'd say that if these people are still actually working on this, they'd better hurry up.  Since the sources are that old, how do you know they're still even working on it?  The whole thing is really, really flimsy.  You're making a lot of assumptions about something that probably is NOT happening right now and the future of which we cannot verify. Qworty (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * On an unrelated topic, Ragnarök does not appear to have happened yet. Should we delete that article until we can confirm that Surtr has covered the Earth in fire? Second Coming? Or is it enough that the topics have been blanketed by reliable sources, and we can include them whether or not they actually come to pass? ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  22:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just more WP:OTHERCRAP. You seem to be on a real WP:OTHERCRAP roll now.  Please stop.  WP:OTHERCRAP can't be used in AfDs.  Thank you. Qworty (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yet another WP page you can link to without understanding the content. Yes, I did mention other topics, to illustrate to you that your conception of policy cannot be extended past this article, and that your perception of policy has no basis in policy. WP:OTHERCRAP is about using similar articles as a defense or attack, not as a sarcastic example to illustrate your own logical fallacy. The article stands very well on its own, even if you can't grasp that or the policies behind that. If you don't wish to actually read comments before responding to them, or to actually read policies and essays before linking to them, that is your right as an anonymous internet citizen. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  00:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Some VERY strange arguments for inclusion. "There are some people somewhere working on a thing.  The sources say they were working on it seven or eight years ago.  Maybe they are still working on it.  Maybe they will finish it one day.  Hey--I know!--Let's have a Wikipedia article about it!"  I can't believe we're even discussing this.  Obviously, none of this is a credible rationale for having an article. Qworty (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And yet again, under what conditions do you think that an unreleased work warrants an article? Are you saying that WP:CRYSTAL means that any work that is not yet released for public consumption is inherently non-notable? ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  00:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You have a very weak grasp of what AfD discussions are all about. This is NOT the venue to be arguing about article verifiability in general.  There are other places on Wikipedia to do that.  The purpose of this AfD discussion page is to talk about THIS ARTICLE, and not about unrelated policy issues or WP:OTHERCRAP.  So please try to stay on topic.  As for this article, it is very poorly sourced and concerns something that hasn't happened.  WP:CRYSTAL applies here.  If you want to argue the appropriateness of the WP:CRYSTAL policy, go there and click on "talk" and you will find a talk page where you can make your observations and arguments.  This isn't the place. Qworty (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol, ok. Per WP:Ambox Suggestions. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  00:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but your conception of CRYSTAL is either wrong or not the way it's commonly enforced. If we enforced it like that, there wouldn't be a single article for any video game (or product in general) with a future release date; game articles could only be created on their release date or after. You can cite WP:OTHERSTUFF all you want, but we're not talking about a random article here or there; there are hundreds of well-sourced, unreleased video game, book, movie, etc articles out there that would easily survive at AFD. As should this one. Sergecross73   msg me   01:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And those hundreds of video games were worked on for seven or eight years without being released? And the articles about them rely on a couple of small sources that amount to nothing better than blogs?  Go ahead and bring up WP:OTHERSTUFF.  You'll find that this article doesn't measure up to the standards you yourself would care to apply. Qworty (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There is consensus that enough of the sources are considered reliable. (See WP:VG/S.). Length of development time and whether or not its released are not valid criteria for or against deletion. Sergecross73   msg me   10:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If this was a non-notable/unconfirmed aspect of a specific franchise (Godzilla (2012 film project)) I would favour a merge, but as it is there are enough sources for an independent article on this game. elvenscout742 (talk) 06:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

www.ign.com/games/ni-oh/ps3-711566

www.gamespot.com/ni-oh

ps3.gamespy.com/playstation-3/oni

www.1up.com/games/ps3/ni-oh

ca.ign.com/images/games/ni-oh-ps3-711566

98.71.52.142 (talk) 16:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, those database entries in particular aren't the best examples, but they do lead to plenty of good, third party coverages. For instance:
 * IGN Preview
 * Gamespot Preview
 * IUP.com Preview
 * VG247 article about it not being vaporware
 * This right here alone is four sources that are non-controversially reliable, as seen at the prior consensus at WP:VG/S. Sergecross73   msg me   18:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - There's a few hits
 * One sentence:
 * Not independent of the topic: *
 * The topic doesn't meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I just provided 4 reliable sources. What about those? Or the Andriasang one? Or the other ones in the article? Sergecross73   msg me   04:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Or the dozens that are in Japanese. Do a search for "光栄 仁王" (Koei Ni-Oh) or "コーエーテクモ 仁王" (Tecmo Koei Ni-Oh) or "プレイステーション 仁王" (PlayStation Ni-Oh) or "黒澤 明 鬼" (Akira Kurosawa Oni). I just didn't see much of a point in scraping those since there are more than enough RSs already used in the article. It seems that Uzma Gamal may be making the mistake that was made above, confusing the magazine archives for the reliable sources? I'm not sure why the included sources wouldn't suffice. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  08:00, 26 October 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.