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. Reliable sources were added to the article, thus the delete !votes over the lack of them in the article are refutted. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haunt (video game)[edit]

Haunt (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

No significant coverage found. This Xbox Live Arcade video game fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Plenty of coverage , including a preview video that has been on Xbox Live http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/Haunt/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d80258410b34 Darwin-rover (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does a video on Xbox Live for an Xbox Live video game show notability? SL93 (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2012 (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) 00:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not every video game needs a Wikipedia article. — WylieCoyote (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious Keep - a quick Wikiproject Video games reliable sources search shows coverage at Joystiq, GameSetWatch, IGN and 1UP among others. Clearly a matter of WP:BEFORE as there's been plenty of coverage on this game. --Teancum (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm tired of people pointing me and others to WP:BEFORE when I or they do search for sources. I did say that so it does make me mad. SL93 (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Different Wikiprojects have their own search links that help you find sources easier. You can also try searching for the name of the company along with the name of the product, to help sort through the results and find if anyone mentioned this specifically. Dream Focus 07:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unreferenced, no detail, no expressed claim of notability. WP:BEFORE works both ways. It's also incumbent on article creators to create something that at least resembles an encyclopedia article. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References don't have to be included in the article to prove it is notable. Do you have a problem with the references found by Teancum? Dream Focus 07:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with them is that he hasn't added any. A vague handwave "Oh there will be references" and name-checking a few web sites that cover the broad topic of gaming is not providing a reference for this topic, that demonstrates significant coverage of it.

In particular, the only detail provided so far "it will be available in late 2011" is clearly both a fail of WP:CRYSTAL when it was added and is now simply obsolete. If this assumption turned out to be correct, then there should be reviews aplenty by now. There are none referenced here. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:V now that sources have been identified, it is not required to add them in terms of evaluating for notability (assuming there's agreement the sources are helping to assert notability). Yes, they should be added in time but doesn't need it this moment.

Also, while yes, the game was planned to be released in 2011, and that hasn't happened, that doesn't mean there's a failing of CRYSTAL. The sources found point to a late 2011 release, but no source has seem to update that, so that's the best measure of when the game's release is. Since it is announced in that manner by reliable sources, it does not fail the CRYSTAL. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have still not been added. Naming a few games magazines is not the same thing as adding a source. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Teancum has found reliable sources giving significant coverage of this game, such as this one [1]. Dream Focus 07:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article should show notability. Without sources that it really exists, I should even consider is as promo or a hoax. BTW: for a strange reason a Google News search never ever finds anything. I have not a clue why. Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, articles should show notability, and before this AFD, there wasn't any. Sources have been IDd now, [2], but as per WP:V/WP:N, don't have to be included to show notability. (They should be included at some point, yes.). --MASEM (t) 14:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There you point on one of the biggest blunders of Wikipedia. If an article should be properly sourced to proof notability, it is a bit strange that sometimes it is good enough to just know that sources exist. But is editor P says that a source exists, how can editor Q verifies its content or even existence? It is a conflict that should be dealt with soon. Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Blunder though it may be, it is what we do (per WP:N and WP:DEL). If the lack of sources in the article offends so much, please feel free to fix. Hobit (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Though a game with some but very limited coverage like this one by known developers will ultimately get an article, the limited information suggests merging to a developer's article as a pending work -- however, with the split developer aspect, this is not practical. Thus the article as a stub should remain. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep topic has been shown to meet WP:N. No real objection to a merge if a good target can be found. Hobit (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources have been added. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No sources have been added.

There is one edit to this article since the AfD. It added a formatted infobox and it also changed the evidently incorrect claim that the game was released last year into a WP:CRYSTAL claim that it would be released in January. There is still no sourcing for anything in this article. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - expanded the article with seven references from reliable sources to demonstrate notability. While it'll be difficult to get it past a start class, it still passes WP:N. --Teancum (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – There is sufficient coverage out there in the sources shown above, which can be easily added in. --MuZemike 01:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the now-added sources.  Gongshow ^Talk 02:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Enough sources have been provided to establish notability. Game-Guru999 (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2012 (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.