Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guild Masters

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guild Masters (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)

Fails WP:N and WP:V. I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The WikiProject Video Games reliable and situational custom Google searches (found at WP:VG/RS) returned zero results about this game, only about other games that happen to include a "guild master". The sources used in the article are unreliable (ZonaMMORPG) in addition to trivial (Akihabara Blues and Tecnologia y Ciencia). Diario de Sevilla appears to be an actual publication, but it's the kind of local promotional journalism that is virtually useless to us. Like the other sources, the author urges readers to support the Kickstarter campaign and says little about the game itself. That leaves Sevilla Directo, which is effectively a primary source. It's described as an "interview" but the developers aren't asked any questions: they highlight key points about their game and (again) promote their Kickstarter. Even if these sources were all significant and reliable and independent, we still wouldn't be able to write more than "there was a Kickstarter". I should note that the main contributor to this article, User:Almartor, has identified himself as the "main partner (CEO)" of the developer/publisher. Woodroar (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 01:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I only can add the following: -Sevilla Directo TV was an interview, but in the referenced video all questions were cropped to shorten it. Interviewed was not only talking about the game, they were replying to questions throwed by interviewer. - Diario de Sevilla is not only a "local newspaper" in Spain, it gathers several twin publications (same editor group) all Andalusia, the largest region in Spain with more than 8 millions of inhabitants, the same article was published in paper format in all Andalusia: Diario de Córdoba, Diario de Cádiz, Málaga Hoy, Granada Hoy, and some of them have also the digital version:

  - Granada Hoy: http://www.granadahoy.com/article/granada/1373877/prologo/una/aventura/alianzas.html
  - Málaga Hoy: http://www.malagahoy.es/article/malaga/1375617/prologo/una/aventura/alianzas.html

so it is not just "local". AS I stated before, the game was very notable on Spain for being the FIRST Spanish digital game funded on Kicksatarter when crowfunding was being fashioned in Spain. That is the reason of all those references for the kickstarter project. These articles were not propmotional, for that there are tons of press releases you can find on google. These coverage from this large editor group, both at paper and digital versions, and the local TV channel at Sevilla, IS reliable, and should be enough coverage for notability. You can delete for any other reason, but you should not delete it for lack of notability and Spanish coverage. --Almartor (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our WP:GNG, the general requirements for notability on Wikipedia, do not include "was successfully crowdfunded", no matter how large the campaign was. In fact, we tend to ignore popularity, whether it's in the form of crowdfunding or People's Choice Awards. For a game, we're primarily looking for articles and reviews written by noted games journalists, covering things like development and history, gameplay, plot, and critical reception. The current sources virtually ignored those aspects and instead promoted–yes, promoted–your Kickstarter. We have separate notability requirements for events (see WP:EVENT) which require lasting effects, diverse and non-regional sources, and in-depth coverage of the event, none of which is the case here.

I should also mention that continuing to promote your game despite your clear conflict of interest is not a great idea. Editors with COI can find themselves topic-banned or even blocked from editing Wikipedia. Woodroar (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got it the threat, I won't edit anymore in my articles, no need to ban anybody. Anyway you, intentionally or not, changed the sense of the notability reason. It is not just "being successfully crowdfunded" as ou remarked. IT is being the FIRST Spanish company successfully crowdfunded. Being the FIRST doing something in a country with more than 40 millions of inhabitants (specially doing something so fashionalbe nowadays as being funded on kickstarter), is something clearly notable, despite you minimize the achievement omitting the FIRST word. Furthermore, you are applying notablity criteria about launched games, but Guild Masrters is not properly launched (still just a beta pre-launch); its notability is not what you understand for a gme being notable, it is not just the game, but the achievemnet of being the first project in large country to doing something, what make it notable and deserved of being on wikipedia, as the South-Spanish newspapers did written about.

In short I won't edit anymore, and you can delete for any reason you think, but me or anybody can agree there is not notability and not trusted coverage about it. --37.11.162.127 (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as my searches clearly found no better coverage thus no signs of a better notable article. Notifying tagger Woodroar in case they're not aware of this current AfD. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 15 December 2015 (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.