Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum Legacy (computer game)

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. I will make the article available to anyone who wants to work on adding sources, just ask on my talk page. W.marsh 19:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Legacy (computer game)

The game was orginally nominated to "no consensus" here. In the last several months, there has still only been one non-trivial source presented, though I'm nto sure how major strategyinformer.com is. I believe the subject does not present multiple non-trivial sources for verifiability, and that it doesn't meet WP:SOFTWARE or WP:WEB (take your pick). There are original research issues too seeing as the game's forum is cited as a source several times. Wafulz 05:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep, yes the article has a few problems. But then again what article doesn't? In conclusion I do not see this being a bad enough example that we should give up hope on it and delete it away completely. Thus I support keep. Mathmo ^Talk 08:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Having only one source (an interview with the creator, no less) is a problem. It's hard to build a neutral/comprehensive article from one source. --Wafulz 15:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've been the main editor of that page. Yes, sources are little, but the information is acurate, and little bit comes from the creator over the games creation period, not said specifically for this page to advertise it. I've also, if you review history of both the page and discussion, tried to implement or remove parts of the article to help save it. So please be generous and contribute yourself if you think the article needs work. --K776 08:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The best way to get this article kept is to present multiple reliable sources --Wafulz 15:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One non-trivial source is enough. -Toptomcat 14:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually we need multiple sources. We still only have one pre-release interview. It even states in WP:WEB that "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." --Wafulz 15:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But then almost 50% of all pages relating to products and games would have to go. Not everything has multiple reliable sources, especially during its early development. A reliable source to me is something that can be seen by everyone. For example "3d graphics" can be seen, "amazing 3d graphics using a new graphics system in the backend" cannot. Thats all that should matter on articles like these. Facts that can be seen by others by simply opening the game, and they must be said without opinion. I've tried my best to do that. --K776 19:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hyperbole and made up statistics won't answer this article's problems. A reliable source is something that has gone through an editorial process, as noted in the reliable source guidelines. What you've described ("seeing") is actually original research, which is not allowed. The first couple of lines of WP:V sum it up:

Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it.

--Wafulz 20:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 18:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing any sources independent of the game's creators. Most of the assertions made in the article, moreover, do not appear to be sourced at all. As I stated in the previous debate: this looks rather nifty, but it's not yet encyclopedia-article-worthy. Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third-party sources and the article seems to consist primarily of original research. Also, in response to some of the above comments, one legitimate source is insufficient as policy requires at least two. Whether or not other existing articles fail to meet this requirement is of no relevance in this case; that's an argument supporting nominating those articles for deletion rather than an argument for keeping this article. If proper sources can't be supplied then this article needs to go. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Way (talk • contribs) 06:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Minor nitpick: WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE are guidelines, not policy. Zetawoof^(ζ) 09:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but they're just logical extensions of WP:V and WP:NOR, which are policies. --Wafulz 17:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've done some searching. Does http://pc.gamezone.com/gamesell/p28064.htm change anything? Or does that not count? GameZone is a popular place right? Or do I need to look for others? --K776 09:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd never heard of GameZone, actually. It looks like it's a reputable site, judging from the article; however, that page probably wouldn't be considered a "non-trivial" source, as all it has (as far as I can tell) is a description of the game's storyline and a couple of screenshots. Zetawoof^(ζ) 11:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've heard of Gamezone and it is reputable, however we need to be careful when using gaming magazines to determine notability. Almost all games get attention in the bigger gaming magazines and websites; usually every game gets a preview and a review, this may not be sufficient for notability since these magazines are so indiscriminate. Just something to think about. --The Way 21:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, regardless of the source, this isn't even a review- it's just a brief paragraph about the game, so it's not actually the subject of an article. --Wafulz 21:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Someone from QL found these links. Atleast one of them has to be useful? --K776 08:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.igf.com/php-bin/entries.php?entry_id=63

http://www.gamershell.com/download_11270.shtml

http://www.mpogd.com/games/game.asp?ID=1863

http://mmo.portalsnetwork.com/index.php?module=PortalGameDB&func=display&game=843

http://www.wickedsmallgames.com/games/q/quantum-legacy-initial-tactics/

http://www.sanitariumgames.com/strategy-games/quantum-legacy.html

http://pc.gamezone.com/gamesell/p28064.htm

http://www.ownage.nl/game/1619/

None of these appear to contain any substantial content which wasn't copied from the QL website, or any independent reviews more substantial than numerical user ratings. (MPOGD actually describes it as "massively multiplayer" for some reason, which is completely wrong.) Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats sad. But give it more time. More articles will be written and more reviews printed. Just because it doesn't have them now doesn't mean it wont have them in the near future. --K776 21:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately for this article we have a policy (WP:Crystal) that states that we can't keep something because we expect it to become notable in the future because it is not a definite thing. If additional reviews do come out in the future then this article can be recreated at that time. --The Way 22:00, 21 January 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.