Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Guys from Andromeda
- 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) 01:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- Two Guys from Andromeda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
fails WP:CORP. sources are not so reliable gaming websites, lacks coverage in mainstream reliable sources. let's see if my AfD followers turn up at this one. LibStar (talk) 08:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep As creators of the Space Quest series, Murphy and Crowe are definitely notable; if they had pages for themselves, this one would perhaps not be needed, but they don't. The form of this nomination is also horrible: you are not to have "AfD followers turn[ing] up": wikipedia work by consensus, not by cliques. complainer (talk) 12:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- That's not what LibStar is on about. Just don't get involved in this. It's silly long-term feuding that goes back years. Uncle G (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- All right, I probably don't want to know, but this is a nomination, it's a very clear and public proces, and it has to respect form. In this context, that sentence is completely out of line. complainer (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- That's not what LibStar is on about. Just don't get involved in this. It's silly long-term feuding that goes back years. Uncle G (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- it's also out of line that some editors engage in WP:WIKIHOUNDING and follow me to deliberately vote against me in AfDs. LibStar (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- You should absolutely report the incident and, if it is at all in my power, I'll stand behind you in that. I'm just saying this is the wrong forum. complainer (talk) 07:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm not familiar enough with the subject to make a call yet, but I disagree with the nominator's claim of "unreliable gaming websites". Most of them are deemed useable from the consensus on sources over at WikiProject Video Games. There would have to be a better rationale presented for me to support a delete !vote... Sergecross73 msg me 02:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Sources include:
- Having a subsection in relation to Kickstarter project articles:
- Keep - Per list of reliable sources that provide coverage on the subject, that I listed above. Passes the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 03:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- these sources are all from gaming industry media, I would think more mainstream press coverage would establish notability. LibStar (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but that's not a requirement of meeting the WP:GNG. Significant coverage from reliable sources is. Not "mainstream coverage". If we applied your reasoning, we'd have to delete half of the video game articles out there, because only Eurogamer and IGN were providing previews, and not USA Today and the like. Note "mainstream" is not once found at the link for the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 03:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- these sources are all from gaming industry media, I would think more mainstream press coverage would establish notability. LibStar (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
it relates to reliability of sources WP:NEWSORG. "reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact". gaming industry websites some of which look like blogs are definitely less established. LibStar (talk) 03:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- That link is only relevant to identifying reliable sources. There's already consensus, per prior discussion in the related WikiProject, that sources such as the ones I've given above, are reliable. None of the more specific guidelines, like WP:NSONGS, WP:NBAND, the links you keep giving, etc - none of them trump the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 03:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- yes but coverage relates to reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- My whole argument is that these are reliable sources that help meet the GNG, so I'm not sure how that's a counterpoint to what I'm saying. My point is that, regardless of your familiarity with the sources in question, there is prior consensus in favor of their reliablility. Sergecross73 msg me 13:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- yes but coverage relates to reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comment In my opinion, there is too much focus on the nature of the sources in this discussion: I don't really think that the existence of the company, the titles produced or the persons involved are doubted by anyone. The issue is whether it is notable; if this notability is established by the wrong means is something that should be taken to the talk page, not to an AfD discussion. Just my two pennies, here. complainer (talk) 07:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I follow your line of thinking. On Wikipedia, notability is established through significant coverage in third party reliable sources. To say we're spending too much time on sources, is like saying we're spending too much time on evidence at a court trial. It doesn't make sense. Sergecross73 msg me 13:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - For now, I think WP:BEFORE applies. Its not the best article on WP, but it shows signs of potential. It has a lot of things wrong with it: Smells of press release, reads like a resume of the people involved with very little mention of the company, messy layout with no narrative flow and its in need of extra sources. - BUT, the majority of sources are reliable and have been agreed upon by consensus at WP:VG/RS. Following the principle of WP:BEFORE, I think the article should have been tagged, left for a couple of months and then nominated if no improvements were made. I have tagged the article with reference and cleanup tags. - X201 (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- I do agree that it does require a lot of clean up. I'll try to do some... Sergecross73 msg me 13:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - It's still far from perfect, but X201 and myself have made a lot of improvements to the article, including adding many of the sources listed above. Sergecross73 msg me 16:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - There is significant coverage in several reliable sources, so it looks like it passes WP:GNG. If the consensus has established that the sources are reliable, then they shouldn't be discounted just because they're not mainstream.CaSJer (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - May not be the best article, but passes the GNG CyanGardevoir (used EDIT!) 05:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Passes WP:GNG. --pcj (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep – Passes GNG. A couple more sources from technology websites:
- Keep - The sources don't seem unreliable to me. They seem to be mainstream online gaming press. Especially Gamasutra, which is the online branch of the trade publication Game Developer Magazine. The two guys are notable both for their old work for Sierra and for their new venture which has gotten a lot of attention. APL (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Nothing wrong with it that I can see. The Two Guys are notable, for their work on Space Quest if nothing else. I don't think the sources are objectionable. Flow (talk) 22:04, 6 August 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.