Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DarkwebSTREAMER (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DarkwebSTREAMER (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A year on from the last AfD and this game has still not been released. No one can play it and consequently every review of the game fails on the independence criterion. This is a software WP:NPRODUCT and Wikipedia is advertising unreleased software. WP:SIRS pertains and early access reviews cannot be independent. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Products, and Australia. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep GNG is clearly passed. Notability does not hinge on whether a game has been released; because Wikipedia is not an advertising tool, but a recorder of facts, and unreleased games can still have things about them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - plenty of third party sourcing discussing it in detail already in the article. Meets the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 21:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Meets WP:GNG have refernces and notable articles Monhiroe (talk) 10:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have some sympathy for the argument that early access reviews of a product can not be independent by definition, however I'd want to see that explicitly spelt out in WP:PAG. TarnishedPath^talk 08:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, yes. It is spelled out in WP:PRODUCTREV, which says:No reviewer paid to review this product, as they cannot. It was provided free of charge in every case. Despite 3 votes above claiming this meets GNG, this is a product and needs to meet WP:SIRS. No evidence has yet been given that any reviews meet SIRS. In particular, WP:ORGIND is not met. No one has played this game - all claims to notability are a type of advertisement. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sirfurboy, thanks for that. I only read WP:NPRODUCT when I made my prior comment. TarnishedPath^talk 11:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify: Per WP:PRODUCTREV, sponsored reviews where the author has been provided with the product free of charge are not independent, which rules our a lot of the sourcing when considering notability. What is left doesn't provide WP:SIGCOV of the product itself. This product might come out soon, at which time I would expect more reviews, which is why I suggest moving to draft. TarnishedPath^talk 11:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. I confirm that I think draftify is a good WP:ATD in this case. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Hi! I'm the lead developer of darkwebSTREAMER. I just wanted to clear up some confusion based on some comments I've read here - the game has been played by thousands of people at various public conventions and events across the world. You may be interested to know that Tribeca Festival chose the game as one of their six showcase games, where it showed in New York at Tribeca Festival and was award-nominated. We were also showcased, played and award-nominated at notable places like SXSW and PAX, among many others. We also have alpha playtests accessible to our Patreon members, who in exchange for a fee can play the game at any time. Most of the journalism articles about the game were written after journalists played it at publicly accessible events. We've certainly never paid a cent to anyone to write an article about us. Based on the wording of the WP:PRODUCTREV, I would suggest the intention is to avoid awarding "notability" based on compensated marketing campaigns, instead of organic coverage by journalists interested in a piece of media. A final personal note: as an independent creator I look at the game more as an experimental piece of media than a "product" solely created for commercial sale. I created it for fun and the initial intention was never to sell it, but it grew bigger than me :) Okay that's it - I wanted to ensure that you had correct information available to you. Thank you! :) 61.68.201.48 (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The article currently has several references about the game being played at gaming conventions and none of those contained WP:SIGCOV (I took those into consideration in my comments above). The only articles which I could tell had SIGCOV were where reviewers were been provided with early release copies of the product and hence not independent. If you're going to make arguments for notability then I would suggest providing specific evidence in favour of your arguments. TarnishedPath^talk 13:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify, is a journalist playing a game at a public event considered being "provided with an early release copy"? Most articles written involve these journalists waiting in line like everyone else, as context. I can provide copies of articles I think meet the SIGCOV requirements but would need to know what metric you're judging by. 61.68.201.48 (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  After reviewing the whole of the WP:SIGCOV article, I see the full wording is located in the "Product Review" section and states:

  As head of the studio, I can confirm that none of the articles provided are types of advertisements nor product placements, and the only media articles on the game have been initiated by the journalist or media organisation, sometimes in response to playing a public demo.

  Given the lines quoted are located in the "product review" section of the WP:SIGCOV article, I'd also encourage people to consider whether most of the coverage falls within the scope of a "review", versus "coverage". Some of the cited articles are by journalists who haven't played the game but researched it, and thus they can't have "reviewed" it nor purport to. In addition, most of the articles are not framed as reviews but features. I would agree that articles referencing "games we played at this show" could be viewed as "reviews", but without journalists receiving compensation for those articles, I don't think they could be reviewed as product placements or advertisements as specified in WP:PRODUCTREV. 61.68.201.48 (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  For further consideration, the Independent Sources section (WP:ORGIND) of Notability (WP:ORG) states as follows:.

  Given that cited articles have been published by journalists and media organisations not because they were compensated or requested to do so but because they independently considered the game notable enough to publish on it, I would suggest that this places them squarely in Independent sources that count toward notability rather than conflicting/disqualifying sources.

  For the 3 journalists who were provided private builds of the game, I will document that they were provided builds that expired after use, so I can confirm no one was provided compensation in the form of "free product" either. 61.68.201.48 (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:GNG is clearly met. Skyshiftertalk 13:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.