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 no consensus to delete W.marsh 20:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vanishing Point (alternate reality game)[edit]

Vanishing Point (alternate reality game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article reads like an advertisement for Microsoft's gimmick. It has no sources other than from Microsoft itself; the article doesn't meet WP:CORP (products and services) or WP:WEB. An anon made some edits after I prodded the article, but they didn't address these concerns. Lunch 16:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Much of this page seems to be advertizing videogame competitions. Anthony Appleyard 18:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment and then STRONG KEEP. Is that called notable!? I would like to answer "YES" to that. Sources? Search in google news or something, and the outcomes are really not disappointing. Here, take it if you don't want to search. (long commentary with links to sources moved to talk page --A Train ^{take the} 17:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)) --202.71.240.18 10:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -I don't think it should be deleted - yes, although it is a BSP of Windows Vista, it's generated enough attention via huge displays across the world to deserve a wikipedia entry, and people need information. I live in seattle, and me and a few friends caught it by chance. However, we did find a few people who were fascinated, and one guy who came all the way from detroit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hazzayoungn (talk • contribs) 19:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Another vote for keep I first learned of VP from the New York Times this evening and came onto Wikipedia for more information. I agree that the article needs to be improved, and I think we can rely on the usual process to make that happen. But that fact that VP is advertising doesn't make it less notable. There's plenty of articles on advertising-related topics in Wikipedia. If the lack of sourcing bothers you, work to improve it, don't just nominate for deletion. Gabriel Roth 02:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FPBot (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC) A Train ^{take the} 17:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is definately notable; sources can and have been found. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No claim of notability under WP:SOFTWARE or other guidelines including those at the video-games WikiProject; no indication of sufficient independent reliable coverage to establish notability, as the sources mainly appear to be associated with Microsoft, or to be unverifiable forum posts, or to be minor passing mentions (I haven't gone through all of the refs in detail). WP is not for promotion of commercial promotional activities. Does anything in the VP situation pass the hundred year test? I follow some aspects of the Vista introduction and related issues, and I don't see a reason to say this gimmick will be remembered at all, let alone be considered influential. Barno 20:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems notable to me? Winterborn 07:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winterborn, for such a new user, your edits to AfDs seem rather unusual. What drew your attention to this AfD? Or have you edited Wikipedia before under another username? Thanks, Lunch 01:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Were you the anon that edited your comments?

Sorry for the very late reply. I was unaware that my contribs were unusual at all, I just had a boring night so I spent some time on the articles for deletion page, I figure it's something I can do to help when I have the time and no I was not the anon. I'm sorry if I've caused you any alarm. Winterborn 04:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I, too, took a look through Google news, but I couldn't find much of anything other than press releases, blogs, and discussion forums. I think someone mentioned a New York Times article, but I looked any couldn't find any. The article mentioned by Gabriel Roth above does mention Vanishing Point, but it is only a single paragraph of three short sentences at the very bottom of the article:

Most of Microsoft’s vast marketing budget will be on print, television, radio and Web advertisements. But some will go for so-called viral marketing events like an online puzzle contest called Vanishing Point, sponsored by Microsoft and A.M.D. The winner will get a ride into space from a private space travel company.

That's not a source on Vanishing Point; it's a source on Vista's release. I also searched through LexisNexis. If I searched for "vanishing point" in the headline or lead paragraphs, I got no hits. If I search through the full text, I did. That tells me that Vanishing Point only received brief mention; it did not have whole articles about it.

To those who think the article should be kept, please please edit the article to add sources. The Neowin forums are OK, but they're not sufficient alone. As I understand them, the notability guidelines call for multiple, independent, reliable sources.

Lastly, as another user asked above, is this marketing gimmick going to be remembered in 10 years? If not, does it belong in an encyclopedia?

Unless someone addresses these concerns, I stand by the nomination. Lunch 23:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Who said this is a piece of software!? Why is it needed to comply with the WP:SOFTWARE policy for it's not a software? Moreover, that new user has unusual edits for this edit doesn't mean that he uses another user name or even anon edits! The truth is that the person typing this comment is the anon (using IP 202.71.240.18) that user Lunch was talking about. If you do not trust the anon (that's me), it's just fine, I have no further questions or more arguments to refute yours as you think having a username meant you're greater than other IP editors, and that anons do net deserve a right to speak here. --202.71.240.18 06:20, 2 February 2007

BTW, new "independent sources list?" starts here:-

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/01/vanishing_point_ends/ - The Register

http://www.geekzone.co.nz/freitasm/2127 GeekZone

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/aei/2007/01/vanishing_point_1.html - Mercury News

http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/01/space-contests-take-flight-irs-takes-notice/ Engadget news on no free ride to space

http://www.space.com/news/ap_070129_spacetourist_contest.html - space.com, "No Free Ride to Space for Contest Winners"

http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news/news.phtml/6310/7334/microsoft-amd-vanishing-point-puzzle.phtml - Pocket-lint.co.uk, UK reports

Also, if you are trying to say the sources I listed here are linked to Microsoft, please provide any supporting references for their relationship with Microsoft.

Oh, I forget, if something is special enough, that even will be remembered for a long period of time. Though you won't believe me... --202.71.240.18 06:31 2 Feburary, 2007

And yes, that NY Times Report, I cannot find references there, but I do see a paragraph about the game, so it's not a source but do interested some people to go find out about that... --202.71.240.18

Though the above came from User:210.0.209.178, from the fervent attitude, I'm guessing it's the same person who left the second comment on the AfD. It also seems to be the person who has made some edits to the article.

Regarding those edits, though, these sources still haven't been added to the article. And, no, I'm not claiming that these articles are written by or funded by Microsoft. But -- to pick on one -- a blog at the San Jose Mercury News isn't exactly the greatest of sources for an encyclopedia article. On the other hand, an article in the Mercury News itself would be a bit better.

I didn't suggest the WP:SOFTWARE notability guideline; someone else did. I suggested WP:CORP and WP:WEB as notability guidelines. If you think the article would better fit under yet another guideline, then please suggest one. Bald assertions of notability aren't particularly convincing to me.

Again, please edit the article. I appreciate your enthusiasm for the article, but I think it would be best directed at improving the article. Lunch 16:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. The article from The Register is nice, but can you find something a little more widely read/distributed than that and the Neowin forums? Again, I didn't have any luck with LexisNexis, but maybe you know somewhere else. Lunch 16:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My response is that, just because I replied every comments you guys made previously in one response, doesn't mean I am pointing the accusing finger on you, Mr./Ms. Lunch. Thanks for the advice though. I will work on that. :) --202.71.240.18 06:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete. I just don't think it's notable enough (mostly sporadic forum and blog coverage as with most viral campaigns), and will fall out of interest very, very soon anyway as it's closed. -- Northgrove 09:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Changed opinion on this upon studying sources and the quality of this article. See comment below. -- Northgrove 16:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There are pages for I Love Bees and Lost Experience so why not this. Personally, i think that an event/ARG that sends someone into space noteworthy and wiki-worthy Kuzmaster 07:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC) (fixed up at/by Kuzmaster 07:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Sending someone into space as a prize for a contest is neat, but WP:ILIKEIT isn't a reason for keeping the article. Do you know of any published articles about the game? Anything, perhaps, in a flight trade journal that mentions it? Lunch 15:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. "I Love Bees" got written up in Wired magazine and received a Game Developers Choice Award. "Lost Experience" has articles in Newsday, the Boston Herald, and the Daily Variety. If you can find sources like this for Vanishing Point, I'd definitely change my mind. Lunch 15:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"There are pages for I Love Bees and Lost Experience so why not this." -- for one thing, these articles read like much better crafted actual encyclopedia articles, and was also been brought up more in mainstream media, part because of the novelty and historic significance. Just because these articles were made for a number of reasons, doesn't mean we need to automatically have viral marketing game articles regardless quality and significance outside what still seems like a rather tight knit community to me. -- Northgrove 16:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep When I first heard about this game, I came to wikipedia and it did not disapoint. This article served a purpose to inform, and it meets standards for notablity as far as I can tell. And, if I win, I want the article to talk about me. heheGiovanni33 09:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What standard does it meet for notability? (I'm genuinely curious. WP:SOFTWARE doesn't apply, and it doesn't meet WP:CORP or WP:WEB for the lack of multiple, non-trivial, independent sources.) Lunch 15:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I can't find a video, but this was mentioned on G4's attack of the show the week it launched out of pregame. Also, this is a fairly prevelant game in the ARG community. There is a lengthy summary on ARGNet, one of the most popular ARG news sites. -AtionSong 15:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep popular game --Rayis 00:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find any sources that say it's a popular game? How did you hear of it? Where was it reported? Can you add that to the article? Thanks, Lunch 02:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Change vote to Delete, been read through other articles in the ARG category and yes, they all have at least ONE primary sources away from tabiolds and blog posts :/, and that the game have been mentioned in the ARG article itself, so it's notable enough for a relatively small ARG, maybe post back the contents if the game have got any "notable" awards or something. --202.71.240.18 06:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• One last comment. This discussion on the Wikimedia Foundation-L mailing list about corporate ads finding their way into Wikipedia was recently brought to my attention. I hope it gets widely read. Lunch 15:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I earlier voted Delete on this one, but could possibly stretch to a Weak Keep if it was largely rewritten. I feel there's so much here right now about how Microsoft carries out the advertising of the game, and so little about the game itself. This case is worsened by the fact that due to the nature of the game, the concepts of "advertisement" and "gameplay" is all mixed up. I think the problem with articles like these is that they can read very confusing and quite a bit unencyclopedic with only scattered bits of info revealed. After all -- that's the whole point of viral marketing. However, it's a point that is in conflict with quality articles on Wikipedia, with clearly laid out facts and verifiable information. This article is everything but about a game where the developer is eager to reveal the exact content of it, with great coverage with interviews on it, and so on. The essence of the game that fuels it is speculation. At this point, the effect right now reads like an incoherent and confusing article to an outsider on the subject like me, and I barely understand what the point of the "game" is. The actual game play section also seem to be placed way late in the article, and should probably be the most important part of it. -- Northgrove 16:23, 6 February 2007 (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.