Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xbox Exhibition disks

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 merge‎ to Xbox (console) Other possible merge targets have been mentioned. If necessary, possibly changing to a different target can be discussed on the talk page. Randykitty (talk) 09:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox Exhibition disks

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The article's topic is of a nature that makes it very hard to identify reliable and verifiable sources, which creates an arguable case of lack of notability under WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. In searching for mention of the series, there is next to nothing. Any mention tends to be under primary sources that lists their contents, or, as in the article, link to the disks on the Internet Archive. I can only find one secondary source that mentions the series in very minor passing from Kotaku, which I have included on the article. As raised on the talk page over a decade ago, plenty of platforms have demo disks; that they were distributed by Microsoft to market the Xbox may be better addressed on the page for the console itself. Grateful for your thoughts. Vrxces (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to game demo it's looking like. It could be discussed as part of a section about the history of game demos. However, the original content they contain does not seem sufficient to merit an article, it seems WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: SIGCOV is not a requirement for notability, it merely generates a presumption as to notability if SIGCOV can be established. Even without SIGCOV, I think GNG is met here. XBOX had a massive cultural impact, and as the Kotaku article notes, these discs were a part of that system's launch. Furthermore, they were the origins of what eventually became DLC. Additionally, these disks are highly prized by collectors, and that value as a collectable lends some strength to these disks being regarded as notable in their own right. For the above reasons I disagree that this is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Perhaps an individual article for each of these discs would be so; but in a collected list article like we have here, I think its fine and encyclopedic. I don't think a merge with game demo would be appropriate. What makes these disks notable is not the fact that they were game demos per se; but that they were part of the XBOX's launch marketing, the launch marketing for numerous notable titles, and remain prized by collectors. As far as individual demo disks go, this series of demo disks are about nearly as notable as you get. Jack4576 (talk) 11:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a false interpretation of GNG policy. SIGCOV is indeed required for notability. Articles without SIGCOV are not notable or suitable for Wikipedia, period. "Presumed" means that even IF a topic has SIGCOV, it may still not be notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're reading that policy wrong. Topics are presumed notable with SIGCOV, however, it is still possible for some topics to be assessed as notable outside of the aforementioned GNG presumption. Ultimately if SIGCOV is not met it requires a judgement call on the facts, engaging with what the subject of the article is, and what it is not, with an assessment made as to whether an entry would be notable enough to be encyclopedic. Jack4576 (talk) 14:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of articles without SIGCOV where the subject of the article has been found through discussion to be otherwise notable upon review. See AfD discussions here, here, as examples; although with even a minimal amount of effort you can find more.

For this case, there are verifiable characteristics of this subject that tend toward a conclusion as to its cultural notability. I've spelled them out in my previous comments above. Jack4576 (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
???? The ones you linked are not even finished yet, so I'm not sure how you can use them as proof an article with no SIGCOV was kept. This unfinished essay is literally arguing your point should be implemented - the implication being that right now, it isn't. SIGCOV is required. Period. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve never seen this essay before. I’m merely referring to the actual wording of the GNG guideline itself, which does not unequivocally state that SIGCOV is always required. For that reason I actually disagree with the premise of the essay you’ve linked.

Yes the AfD’s I linked aren’t complete, but they’re practically at consensus; and if you can be bothered it really isn’t that hard to find other AfD’s where notability has been established without SIGCOV. Jack4576 (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to spend less time arguing SIGCOV isn't necessary (long shot argument) and more on establishing its notability in any valid sense. Nothing you've particularly said has been backed by reliable sources or even represented in the article. It's just a barebones list of some games on some demo disks. This looks more like a trivial stub you'd see on an Xbox fan wikia or something. Sergecross73 msg me 19:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If, the only reason that people provide for deletion is 'No SIGCOV' without actually engaging in a discussion as to a subject's actual encyclopedic notability; (which would actually require an assessment of what we can determine a subject is and what a subject is not); then, it is necessary to remind people that SIGCOV is not a strict requirement under GNG. This is not a 'long shot' argument. This is me calling out legalistic arguments that fail to engage in an actual assessment of a subject. Indeed, a frustrating legalistic argument, as it is an argument that is (wilfully?) ignorant of the actual wording of the GNG policy.

Regardless, I have made valid arguments as to this subject's notability; if you were willing to engage with them directly.

For example, the Kotaku article referenced documents that these demo disks were a precursor to the introduction of DLC. That seems to me a unique attribute about this subject that generates an argument that this subject is notable.

If you disagree with the conclusions of that argument; feel free to do so. To my mind though, that unique aspect (the DLC precursor aspect) is enough to merit this article being a keep, albeit perhaps a weak keep. Jack4576 (talk) 10:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the meaning you're extrapolating from a single passing mention in a Kotaku article is not even close to persuasive to me. Sergecross73 msg me 11:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, reasonable minds may differ Jack4576 (talk) 11:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say it again - you are straight up incorrect about the "actual wording" of GNG. It's not even a matter of opinion, you are just reading it wrong. Lower on the page under WP:WHYN, it states, straight up, We require "significant coverage". Continuing to ignore people telling you that has the potential to rise to WP:IDHT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even beyond that, the GNG is pretty clear about the multiple sources part too. They're not even clearing that incredibly low bar at this point. Sergecross73 msg me 14:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"multiple sources are generally expected" not "multiple sources are required" Jack4576 (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have...you historically found success in keeping an article with only a single reference that only mentions the subject in passing? I've been participating at AFD for over a decade, and let me tell you...I have not. I don't recall this ever working for someone without at least citing some other subject-specific notability requirement. This sort of interpretation would effectively render the GNG useless outside of subjects being complete hoaxes. Sergecross73 msg me 16:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that WP:WHYN states SIGCOV is a requirement.

However, the actual general notability guideline as stated, articulates the notability issue in terms of the word presumption; if SIGCOV were actually a requirement, the GNG sentence would read:

"A topic is suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

Instead it reads:

"A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

Why would it read that way, unless implicitly, it was possible (in some limited and appropriate circumstances) for a subject to be notable even if SIGCOV was not demonstrated? What would be the utility of the SIGCOV presumption if it would always be required.

I am happy to stop commenting about this and follow consensus if you wish to take this to an RfC. In the meantime, I am engaging in good faith, so your pointing to WP:IDHT is inappropriate. Jack4576 (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Higher up in WP:GNG it explains why "presumed" is used. Articles that fall under WP:NOT may still not merit articles, despite passing the first, significant coverage criterion. However, articles like WP:GOLDENRULE clearly state that SIGCOV is non-negotiable. Start an RfC on the subject if you wish, but it is likely you will be told the exact same thing. After all, not having a SIGCOV requirement would make almost anything notable, and the GNG would be pointless. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GOLDENRULE is not policy. Jack4576 (talk) 09:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And your entire argument hinges on a single passing mention and your own unfounded assertion of importance that has persuaded zero participants thus far. Give it a rest. Sergecross73 msg me 02:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep your comments in reply relevant please Jack4576 (talk) 02:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pointing out the irony of you complaining about an essay being "not policy" when your entire stance isn't rooted in policy, essay, or...anything at all. Sergecross73 msg me 20:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to game demo per Zxcvbnm. Fails GNG, lack of SIGCOV. If viewed as a list, it fails LISTN as well. -- ferret (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per mine and ferrets comments above. Not even close to enough sourcing, in quality or quantity, to warrant a stand-alone article. Wouldn't even be opposed to a delete honestly. Sergecross73 msg me 11:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This could be covered in game demo, or alternatively in Xbox (console). It's hard to see why the topic might need a page unto itself. Even if there were much more sourcing available than there is, the subject isn't conceptually separate to such a degree that a dedicated page makes sense. XOR'easter (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Xbox (console) or Microsoft Game Studios, or more likely, just redirect. There is simply no assertion of notability in the article. I don't understand what all that rambling above is. It seems to be really torturing the definition of the word 'presumed', which is literally defined in more detail in the second sentence at WP:GNG. If you think the topic is notable, WP:THENFIXIT. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If I am understanding the above discussion, the contention is that there can be articles that satisfy WP:GNG without WP:SIGCOV as it is only a mere presumption of notability, in the flavor of WP:NEXIST and arguments such as WP:BARE. The rebuttal has been on WP:NRV and that there is, at this moment, one passing mention in sources illustrating this alternative notability. The intent of framing WP:SIGCOV as a presumption for notability and not a requirement reads to me to establish that the standard is higher than WP:SIGCOV alone, not that the WP:SIGCOV is not a substantial consideration in establishing WP:GNG. Vrxces (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Xbox (console) (or another consensus target if one emerges). // Timothy :: talk 04:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, either to Xbox (console) or Game demo per above. The argument that WP:SIGCOV is not needed to pass WP:GNG is a novel on to me. However that seems to be rebutted by by the second sentence of WP:GNG, which explains that the use of "Presumed" is about an article with SIGCOV not getting an article for other reasons, and not an article being kept without SIGCOV. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 21:34, 19 May 2023 (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.