Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phase Shift (video game)


 * 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   delete. I'm sorry Sknapman but there's a clear consensus that this game isn't notable yet. This may change but I strongly suggest that instead of recreating the article, that you wait for a neutral editor to "take note of" this game and write an article. If you look at the histories of articles like Grand Theft Auto and Doom, you will see that they were not created by Rockstar Games or ID Software Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Phase Shift (video game)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Contested PROD. No assertion of notability through reliable, published sources. Does not meet general notability guidelines. Claims of notability have been made, but no sources have been added, and a reliable sources search did not turn up anything on the game itself, but rather general, broad hits. Searched major WikiProject Video games sources individually, none have covered this game. Teancum (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, the article creator Sknapman may have a WP:COI issue as the Phase Shift homepage points to sknapman.com. No other edits aside from Phase Shift-related ones have been made by the author --Teancum (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - No coverage in reliable, third party sources. Fails the WP:GNG. Judging by the article creator's edit history and the connection Teancum made, it looks like there's a conflict of interest here as well. Sergecross73   msg me   14:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable, still in beta, almost certainly spam. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment – To the points that have been raised.

On the notability issue

Correct me if I am wrong but I read this as a guide to keep the site free of frivolous content such as a wiki's for personal blogs that can be created on a whim and offer no social relevance, flooding the site with pages that serve no use and directly harming the quality and functionality of the site.

In contrast I would question if the guide is really intended for content that can only be created by relatively rare skilled groups over long periods of time that bring unique points of interest to a genre that cannot be found elsewhere. As stated in the guide itself it is to be used with common sense and not an absolute rule. Is this specific application of the guide actually benefiting the site and its readers?

I would make the case this application of this guide may not be fully taking into consideration its intended purpose. I understand not everyone has the time to be an expert in every genre, a Google search can be a good way to filter out the bulk of notability problems, but this might not be enough to make an informed decision, the guide itself states there are exceptions.

The subject is not covered by mainstream media yet, as pointed out, this is mostly due to the project being in beta, if this is against the rules then I apologise for jumping the gun on creating the wiki and will happily resubmit once the page is meeting accepted criteria.

The project will be submitted for review in time, but lack of mainstream coverage itself does not mean the subject is not notable, If the subject is noteworthy and the guideline is rigidly enforced without further consideration, is the notability guideline really being used to serve its intended purpose, and as notability is a guide and not a rule is this really acceptable grounds for deletion by itself.

On the COI issue

As long as the information provided is neutral and accurate is this actually an issue, or is this simply being used as technicality to add weight to the claim without having a meaningful application to this case. If you have issues with the content on the wiki it would be useful to get some further feedback on this point, whatever the outcome of this nomination once the notability issues are handled the page is likely to return, so if there is a legitimate issue here it would be useful to explore beyond an empty statement. So there is no doubts, I am involved with the project, this was not attempted to be hidden. I was aware other people were planning on creating the wiki, so I thought it would be preferable to keep the information as accurate as possible so I took time out to create a core page while trying to maintain a neutral perspective. Up till now this has not been considered a problem for the page, minor points were picked up on and fixed with no objections. I thought it was of benefit to get direct accurate information, but i did not need to go out of my way to do this. If this is considered a bad thing then I can simply leave it to someone else to do next time as this is what was going to happen originally anyway.

If moderators must enforce these guidelines I will just accept this is simply the way Wikipedia operates and resubmit the page once the project has been submitted for review. Hopefully in future these technicalities will not get in the way of the more important matters of providing an open and beneficial information resource. Sknapman —Preceding undated comment added 09:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - but lack of mainstream coverage itself does not mean the subject is not notable, - I think this is the main problem with your current understanding of Wikipedia's definition of notability - this is not true. Notability cannot be established without significant coverage in third party sources. Sergecross73   msg me   20:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - ''That is the criteria used when applying the guideline, I am talking about the purpose of the guideline itself, what its application is supposed to achieve for the site, ie judging if the topic deserves its own article. The guideline itself is clear how it is judged but when it comes to how you apply it, the guide itself states to be used with common sense and exceptions may apply, meaning this is not a clean cut yes / no rule, if that is the case it seems odd it would be considered enough to be used to support a deletion if the subject itself may be noteworthy anyway.

Once this project gets its third party coverage what effect did that actually have on the article itself other than ticking a box in the guideline, its content benefit to the site and its users did not change, so this would lead to the question is the real issue the article just needs improving.

I hesitated to add this, but it seems like it is a valid point, its been pointed out to me there is a WP:COI from account of original claim, user is a regular contributor to the Frets on Fire article, from the context of one of the edit notes it can be seen the user is familiar with the project itself beyond the content of just the wiki, so they are likely a player. Phase Shift is considered a rival project by Frets on Fire supporters, whether the claim is legitimate or not this user cannot be considered impartial on this subject, it would be a shame to have any doubts hanging over what should be a clean matter. If moderators want to continue with this claim, it should be recreated by someone else. This piece of information supports my previous points that the guidelines may have been applied outside of their intended purpose, potential case of exploiting technicalities by applying what is a flexible guide to the letter to achieve personal goals rather than to benefit the site itself. Sknapman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.163.250 (talk) 06:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - a non-notable game. Also there is lack of WP:RS to meet WP:GNG.  →TSU tp* 14:54, 25 June 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.