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.
Defer for a week or so, given the relative novelty of this game, it's entirely possible that it WILL be notable (through mutliple, in-depth RS reviews) within the next week or several in-depth reviews. That is, if it's not already notable via what Google News has been able to find on it so far. At any rate, it's not clear to me why this article was immediately tagged for deletion, rather than sourcing and notability. Jclemens (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding Defer - It seems lately that review sites have been slower about catching up on reviews, seems a bit early to nomination for deletion. --Teancum (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With a little research I turned up two references, one from a source considered reliable at WP:VG/RS and one that looks actually better than the first to me, and which I've proposed to be included at WP:VG/RS. With it already having attracted arguably WP:GNG-satisfying coverage, I'm pretty sure it's notable. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So far all of the sources provided simply prove that the game exists. None of them show any notability. Travelbird (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't appear to understand what "notability" means. Coverage in independent reliable sources is what demonstrates notability. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really want to get into an argument, but you don't seems to know what notability is. Most of the sources are simply redacted versions of the release announcement. this comes closer to a review but is still rather short. WP:N also requires "more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage." Notability need to be long term. The article also needs to show how this particular game is notable i.e. what sets it apart from all the other games out there. By the standards set out above, every commercially published video game would be notable as press releases and blog reviews can be found covering it. Travelbird (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia, all "notability" really means is "should we have an article on this?", and WP:GNG defines that as about independent reliable source coverage. Your claim that the article needs to assert notability is specifically false; "assertion of notability" is not a part of WP:N, it's a matter of CSD A7, which does not apply to this game because it is not a person, individual animal, organization, or Web content. Wikipedia's notability rules are sufficiently fascist and privileging of the viewpoint of soulless organizations that exist to make people like Rupert Murdoch richer without arrogating additional, consensus-not-in-evidence criteria about whether the sources say the topic is important. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, gamershell is a reliable source. No, a press release isn't independent coverage. Co-Optimus needs vetting for reliability. However, how about Rock Paper Shotgun's interview with Mark Currie of BlueGiant? Trivial piece at indiegames.com. I need to see one more piece of coverage - search continues. Marasmusine (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That RPS interview is just lovely; thanks! —chaos5023 (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - the Co-Optimus source is unlikely to pass, but the other two sources are reliable. Combined with the small indiegames.com found by Marasmusine I'd say this is Stub or Start-worthy for inclusion. --Teancum (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficiently non-commercial in tone. Doubtlessly up a bit sooner than an article on this topic should have been, but I'd advocate use of the rule of reason here: "Is Wikipedia better served by the inclusion or deletion of this article?" The piece as it stands has some early sourcing going and may be of use to WP users; it's deletion would not advance the encyclopedia project, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2011 (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.