Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sims:The Island
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. There's no referenced information to merge; when verifiable data becomes available it can be added to the main The Sims article. A Traintalk 21:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Sims:The Island
Reason: No references etc. Turk brown 22:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Doing a very simple Google search shows that the game is confirmed, so the article should be kept, and it can just be expanded. In the future I would recommend doing some research on something before you start nominating something for deletion because it doesn't have sources. This took me 5 seconds to verify that it's in production. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 15:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless expanded and referenced using reliable sources. Very little content and since few details are available it constitutes crystal balling.merge and redirect per the below thread. MartinDK 15:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)- First of all, WP:CRYSTAL ball does not apply as it has been announced as a game, it's not a "it might come out", it's a "will come out". 2nd, it is not a valid reason to delete an article because it needs expanded. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 15:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Then feel free to add the sources as long as they are reliable. WP:N and WP:RS applies no matter how many Google hits you get. Your criticism of the nomination is unfair and at the very least bordering bad faith assumption. The (misleading) external link you provided is a reprint of a press release. Those are specifically not regarded as reliable sources. MartinDK 15:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- First of all, I never claimed it to be a reliable source. I just showed you a real easy way to confirm if the game is real or not. With that being said, you could expand upon that, knowing that the game is confirmed, to research and find reliable sources. And how can you say that I'm bordering bad faith? If I read something, and it's fishy, I go looking for more information to see if I can back something up. I don't look at an article and go "well, it has no sources, I'm going to nominate it for AfD". You can't just blindy run around in the dark. Make sure you bring a flashlight or something. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 16:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry but that's not how it works. The onus is on the people who want the article kept to provide reliable sources. As I stated above you are free to add those sources if they are so easy find. Your uncivil remarks about me running around in the dark are inappropriate and constitute a personal attack. I am asking you to show me the sources that you claim to have found within 5 seconds of Google searching. MartinDK 16:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- First of all, I never claimed it to be a reliable source. I just showed you a real easy way to confirm if the game is real or not. With that being said, you could expand upon that, knowing that the game is confirmed, to research and find reliable sources. And how can you say that I'm bordering bad faith? If I read something, and it's fishy, I go looking for more information to see if I can back something up. I don't look at an article and go "well, it has no sources, I'm going to nominate it for AfD". You can't just blindy run around in the dark. Make sure you bring a flashlight or something. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 16:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Then feel free to add the sources as long as they are reliable. WP:N and WP:RS applies no matter how many Google hits you get. Your criticism of the nomination is unfair and at the very least bordering bad faith assumption. The (misleading) external link you provided is a reprint of a press release. Those are specifically not regarded as reliable sources. MartinDK 15:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- First of all, WP:CRYSTAL ball does not apply as it has been announced as a game, it's not a "it might come out", it's a "will come out". 2nd, it is not a valid reason to delete an article because it needs expanded. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 15:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- When I said "you", I didn't mean you personally, but rather "you" in the general sense, ie: anyone. ie: someone could easily find sources and add them to the article, and possible add some more information on the game. With the filters that my job put on searches I would not be able to do as much as I would want to at this time. When I get home I could try to help clean it up. The question is this: Is it notable? Well, it appears to be a game for all the major consoles, and it is confirmed, so yes it is. It just needs to be expanded upon. Definitely not worthy of a deletion --sumnjim talk with me·changes 17:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- It's not clear to me why we need third party reliable sources here. While they're certainly preferable to primary sources, there's no reason to think that the press release is false in any way. After all, the company is in the best position to know what they plan to publish. That's sufficient to meet WP:V. And it's not like notability is an issue. When the game comes out, it will be part of the best selling PC game franchise ever. I'd say that, in of itself, makes the game notable.-Chunky Rice 18:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Not really. Verifiability is not the issue here. Until there are enough reliable sources with non-trivial coverage this should not be a separate article. WP:N and WP:RS are quite clear about these things. I don't understand what the big problem is. It's hardly an article as it is now and given that very little is known beyond what is in the article it should not be a separate article. MartinDK 18:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Why are you citing otherstuffexists? I don't see how that applies here. Further, I don't understand the argument that you're making in general. WP:RS is a guideline based primarily on WP:V. If you agree that verifiability isn't an issue, why bring up WP:RS? Is your argument that this game isn't notable? If that's the case, I'm not sure I understand what criteria you're using. It's true that it probably doesn't meet the Primary notability criteria, but those aren't the only criteria that we use. I agree that lack of content is an issue, but even with bare bones information, we should be able to get it up to stub quality. That said, I have no objections to a merge.-Chunky Rice 19:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- I made an honest mistake when I was looking up the wikilink. I corrected it just before you posted your reply. WP:N requires multiple reliable sources with non-trivial coverage. Notability is not inherited. Let's wait until we have some more to say about this game. MartinDK 19:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- For those reading this without having read the article yet this is what all the fuss is about:
- The Sims: The Island is in production for the Xbox 360, the Wii, and the Playstation 3. Not to much has been released so far, but it will be joined with Need for Speed: The Island in which the enviroments will be very similar. There will be offline story mode, offline sandbox mode, and online sandbox mode.
- That's it! That's all we have right plus a link to a press release and a
policyguideline called WP:RS based on WP:V which specifically says that press releases being self-published sources are not reliable sources. WP:N requires reliable sources. MartinDK 19:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)- Just as a point of information, that's a guideline, not a policy. -Chunky Rice 19:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Also, notability can be satisfied any number of ways. Certainly coverage by multiple reliable sources is the most common one we use, but others have been found to be acceptable. -Chunky Rice 19:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Feel free to cite what guideline or policy you believe should be applied. I'm especially curious because WP:V is also the same policy that tells us we shouldn't use self-published sources. MartinDK 19:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- You already said that Verifiability wasn't an issue. But regardless, the policy states, "Material from self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability may be used in articles about themselves so long as: it is relevant to their notability; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it." A press release about an upcoming game clearly meets all of those criteria.
- As far as notability goes, I've already said. It's a major release from a major publisher in the best selling franchise of all time. To argue that it's not notable is a little silly, in my mind. -Chunky Rice 20:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- So you don't believe that the article needs to meet WP:N and cite any reliable sources with non-trivial coverage as long as it is a future game confirmed with a press release from a major publisher? In other words notability is inherited in your opinion and does not need to be asserted? You haven't cited any policy or guideline that supports this. Are you able to cite anything that supports your arguments in favor of keeping it? WP:N specifically says that self-published sources should not be used to assert notability. This is bordering wikilawyering. MartinDK 20:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- WP:IAR? All joking aside, I never said that the subject doesn't need to be notable, just that it doesn't need to have multiple reliable sources to be so. All of the notability guidelines support this. Also, I've never made an assertion that the article should be kept. -Chunky Rice 20:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- He he good answer! So all the debating aside do we agree that for the time being this could be merged into the main article, this one turned into a redirect and then when more details and coverage are available a separate article could be created? That would be the ideal solution in my opinion. MartinDK 20:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think I did say, somwhere in the thread, that a merge would be fine with me. The reason is that there just doesn't seem to be enough information to support an article. I still think that the game is notable. -Chunky Rice 20:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- I changed my !vote accordingly. As long as this is merged for the time being notability is not an issue and the press release could be used in the main article to verify that the game is in production. MartinDK 20:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think I did say, somwhere in the thread, that a merge would be fine with me. The reason is that there just doesn't seem to be enough information to support an article. I still think that the game is notable. -Chunky Rice 20:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- He he good answer! So all the debating aside do we agree that for the time being this could be merged into the main article, this one turned into a redirect and then when more details and coverage are available a separate article could be created? That would be the ideal solution in my opinion. MartinDK 20:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- WP:IAR? All joking aside, I never said that the subject doesn't need to be notable, just that it doesn't need to have multiple reliable sources to be so. All of the notability guidelines support this. Also, I've never made an assertion that the article should be kept. -Chunky Rice 20:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- So you don't believe that the article needs to meet WP:N and cite any reliable sources with non-trivial coverage as long as it is a future game confirmed with a press release from a major publisher? In other words notability is inherited in your opinion and does not need to be asserted? You haven't cited any policy or guideline that supports this. Are you able to cite anything that supports your arguments in favor of keeping it? WP:N specifically says that self-published sources should not be used to assert notability. This is bordering wikilawyering. MartinDK 20:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Feel free to cite what guideline or policy you believe should be applied. I'm especially curious because WP:V is also the same policy that tells us we shouldn't use self-published sources. MartinDK 19:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Why are you citing otherstuffexists? I don't see how that applies here. Further, I don't understand the argument that you're making in general. WP:RS is a guideline based primarily on WP:V. If you agree that verifiability isn't an issue, why bring up WP:RS? Is your argument that this game isn't notable? If that's the case, I'm not sure I understand what criteria you're using. It's true that it probably doesn't meet the Primary notability criteria, but those aren't the only criteria that we use. I agree that lack of content is an issue, but even with bare bones information, we should be able to get it up to stub quality. That said, I have no objections to a merge.-Chunky Rice 19:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Not really. Verifiability is not the issue here. Until there are enough reliable sources with non-trivial coverage this should not be a separate article. WP:N and WP:RS are quite clear about these things. I don't understand what the big problem is. It's hardly an article as it is now and given that very little is known beyond what is in the article it should not be a separate article. MartinDK 18:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- It's not clear to me why we need third party reliable sources here. While they're certainly preferable to primary sources, there's no reason to think that the press release is false in any way. After all, the company is in the best position to know what they plan to publish. That's sufficient to meet WP:V. And it's not like notability is an issue. When the game comes out, it will be part of the best selling PC game franchise ever. I'd say that, in of itself, makes the game notable.-Chunky Rice 18:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect (or just Delete). This is a couple of sentences about a potential game without any citation at all. Merge a sentence that it's planned (with an actual citation) to The Sims: Sequels and redirect this title there until there's something to actually say about the game. One of the reasons wikipedia is not a crystal ball is that funding for the project may fall through, the company making it could be bought out, the game itself might run into technical problems that cause a company to shelve it indefinitely, etc. At the moment it's something that maybe, possibly, could exist someday. If and when that day comes, I have little doubt someone will write an article about it, with reviews from periodicals that cover the gaming industry. Until then, this entire "article" is an uncited statement of intent. -Markeer 01:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and merge as above. The game has been announced, but there's currently so little to say about it it would be better suited as a footnote in the The Sims article than an article of its own. Terraxos 01:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:32, 8 July 2007 (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.
