Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thesurvivor2299.com

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. If I go just by the numbers, there's 7 users who think this article should be kept and 9 (+nom) who think it should be deleted. Normally, this could be closed as "no consensus" without batting an eye. However, most delete !votes are strongly based in policy, while a number of keep !votes have less solid justifications; a number of them suggest to "keep until countdown ends", and it has ended, resulting in no additional notability (as opposed to a Fallout 4 announcement would have). I think this may be barely notable to be mentioned in an eventual article about Fallout 4, but policy-based consensus at the present time seems to assert it does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for stand-alone articles. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thesurvivor2299.com[edit]

Thesurvivor2299.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find video game sources: "Thesurvivor2299.com" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Articles relies too heavily on speculation, original research and unreliable sources (Redditt). Per WP:CRYSTAL until something is confirmed as related to Fallout 4 (at which point a Fallout 4 article can be created with a few sentences covering it) there should not be an article on this. Яehevkor ✉ 09:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "and unreliable sources (Redditt)." - the references state more than reddit, and do point to reliable sources now. --121.216.81.129 (talk) 10:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Like the I.P. user said, there are currently no references that reference Redditt; any used before were only used for quoting users. MrScorch6200 (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redditt was just an example, the article still has questionable sources. And Redditt users are just as unreliable as Redditt itself in terms of sourcing. Яehevkor ✉ 11:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Besides failing obvious WP:GNG, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:OR, the site is basically a WP:PROMO piece for (probably) FO4. Even if so, it should be merged to FO4 development in a couple of sentences. The current content is just fancruft at its max. WP:HOAX. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Such an obscure name doesn't warrant a redirect; any important information that is clearly notable can be mentioned in the Fallout series page. A lot of the information in the article seems a bit synthetic though. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 10:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hellknowz. It is a teaser site about to reveal something, probably Fallout 4, but that doesn't make the site in itself noteworthy. --Soetermans. T / C 12:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per everything cited by Hellknowz above. Sergecross73 msg me 13:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clear WP:CRYSTAL violation. Article speculates an apparent pending game announcement but we can't substantiate anything until after the fact. If, however, this pans out to be a Fallout 4 marketing strategy, it would be a very effective use of viral marketing which would be mentioned in the article. CR4ZE (t) 14:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided - Of course, I want what is best for the encyclopedia. I completely understand the WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR issues stated above. There is a lot of speculation behind the site; an article probably should have been created once the site was concluded as legitimate (if not a hoax). I believe that we should wait until Bethesda/ZeniMax comments on it, as they have declined to comment on the site at the moment per their policies. Like what CR4ZE said, "... we can't substantiate anything until after the fact. If, however, this pans out to be a Fallout 4 marketing strategy, it would be a very effective use of viral marketing which would be mentioned in the article". Once again, I am undecided on a deletion until something can be confirmed. MrScorch6200 (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The site is notable, please see the general notability guideline. Independent sources that are reliable (such as IGN) have significantly covered the subject, and will even more once the site's countdown is up. MrScorch6200 (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What else besides IGN is reliable? Also, it's a stretch calling the IGN piece in-depth, it doesn't care about the specifics of the website, just that it's Fallout. The website itself fails WP:WEB, WP:NOT#INTERNET and basically WP:NOTINHERITED. And even if there were multiple GNG-suitable sources, it still belongs in the game's article in development/marketing. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand, it's a bit hard writing about something that we don't know much about at the moment. MrScorch6200 (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then per item #1 of WP:CRYSTAL, you don't write about it. Only verifiable information should be added to Wikipedia articles, and we're not a news site so we can't have "as it happens" articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CR4ZE (talk • contribs) 05:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article needs a lot of work, but there are sufficient sources that prove it is notable. 1 and 2, to start with. A google search of "The Survivor 2299" shows many other news sources extensively covering it. 128.120.184.85 (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What we need is lasting notability, not a hyped news report about a game's promotional website. We do not report singular news events unless they receive tons of coverage. There have been many sites like this and none have been independently covered since their corresponding game was released. This is development/marketing material for the game's article. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I Love Bees <- I'll just leave this here. 108.9.109.162 (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly -- an article that actually has "reception" and "legacy", not just a single event. A prime example of what this one doesn't have. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons already mentioned above. Any necessary information can be included in the Fallout 4 article. The1337gamer (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At least until the countdown finishes. It may or may not be a Fallout 4 hoax. This info is a timeline of the changing website. this wiki article collects and maintains the lost info. Especially when game news sites don't report the small details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GRIMGRIZZLY (talk • contribs)
    • This wiki is not a webhost for preserving info for fans, there are plenty of free web hosts out there, including numerous Fallout wikis. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. After reading the entirety of the article, as well as a news post by PCGamer [1], I think that the page should remain as it is until more information is available. If the site is legitimate, then the ensuing web articles, reports, etcetera will easily pass the wikipedia notability requirements. If the site is not legitimate, there is still a chance that it will have enough of an impact on the gaming community to warrant keeping the page. Unless Bethesda or Zenimax state otherwise, or the site is otherwise confirmed as providing false information, the information provided in this article should be available until the "Countdown" ends. Wikipedia is here to inform, and this article is certainly informative. I learned everything I wanted to know about the website and more in this article, and confirmed that all information provided about the site was valid. If the countdown ends and it was all a hoax, and no ones gives it a second thought, then it will be fine to remove. Kaoskitteh (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Not everything in the world deserves its own article, whether or not it might informative. We also can't have articles around in case they someday might contain more information. There are to options: 1) this article will be deleted in the very near future for these reasons or 2) the article will be merged into the article of Fallout 4 for these reasons. Just because a teaser site has had some attention (in the video game press that is) doesn't mean we should treat it like I Love Bees or Potato Sack. --Soetermans. T / C 18:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment This is an article about speculations, not an article making speculations. The article provides facts about a website that is experiencing an increasing amount of attention, and that's it. Everything about the site that is uncomfirmed is stated as being in such a state ("... a website supposedly acquired..." - "...It speculates a possible Fallout title release..." - " ..."The Survivor" may refer...") It makes little sense to remove the article before the topic has run its course and is concluded, especially when its conclusion is in such a short frame of time. I do agree that a merging with the Fallout page would be the wisest decision, but not until the ordeal is completed. 67.176.86.149 (talk) 04:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I know that the article can be deleted on Monday, but don't you think we can hold off until Wednesday (end of countdown) to make a consensus? It seems only logical. I feel that on Wednesday we can make a better consensus then we could prior to Wednesday. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 01:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I definitely second this. 24.31.162.107 (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just because the subject of an article is a hoax doesn't mean it should be deleted...see Nintendo On, which was also a viral hoax. As for this article, I'd say this is a keeper deletion-worthy article, based on below comments. 『Woona』Dear Celestia... 11:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would agree with you, if the hoax had a huge effect. Video game websites were cautious to comment on the teaser site and now already the storm is over. I don't think this is notable. --Soetermans. T / C 11:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is true, being an article about a hoax isn't a reason alone to delete. Failing WP:GNG with no lasting notability and only routine news coverage by specialized sources, however, is. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Hellknowz Articles do not need lasting notability per WP:N#TEMP. There is nothing in the notability guidelines that says anything about an article needing lasting notability. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 02:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Notability is not temporary" = "Notability is lasting". Routine news coverage repeating the same vague rumor and then repeating the same discovered hoax is not significant coverage. To quote "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity". 10:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand what "Notability is not temporary" means: "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.". Of course, you can argue that it is a short-term interest (which I now agree with). --MrScorch6200 (t c) 21:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I already clarified -- when I said "lasting" it meant the same as "not temporary" plus implied in-depth that's not just hyped news a few years from now. I didn't say anything about it needing ongoing coverage. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plz stop invoking stupid essays, kthx. --Niemti (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Essay or not, "Nintendo On" isn't a good example of anything except for being a sloppy mess. Sergecross73 msg me 18:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rewrite as the article describes this game as being possible, even though it was a hoax. A very notable hoax. [Soffredo] Journeyman Editor 04:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is a hoax, doesn't deserve a page Sevrandy (talk) 04:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes lol --Niemti (talk) 13:29, 9 December 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thesurvivor2299.com&oldid=1138866553"