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. kurykh 08:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pier Solar and the Great Architects

Pier Solar and the Great Architects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable indie game. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Please keep because) I just rewrote the article. I removed unverified claims and blatant advertisement and added references to reliable sources, including a scan of a recent article published in the British RetroGamer magazine. DCEvoCE (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless I'm overlooking something, the closest to a reliable source that discusses the article subject at any significant length is the scan of RetroGamer #49. Am I overlooking something? The tiny blurb (essentially two screenshots) from "an unknown Japanese magazine" doesn't seem terribly significant. D. Brodale (talk) 04:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ya only get on keep !vote, ya know. --Izno (talk) 04:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm happy with the Retro Gamer article (although, do piersolar.com have permission from Imagine Publishing to publicly display this scan?) But I'm not conviced with the reliability of Sega-16.com or destructoid.com - and certainly not the use of forums and blogs such as Tavern RPG or seganerds.com. I'll lean towards a keep if an additional reliable source can be found.
    - What makes Sega-16.com unreliable? It's the biggest Mega Drive site, has 50 000 unique visitors per month, interviews with former CEOs of Sega and loads of other content. If Sega-16 isn't reliable, no other Sega source is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.149.171 (talk) 10:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC) — 94.191.149.171 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I don´t understand the fuss. Calling big websites like Sega-16, Sega Universe or destructoid unreliable seems random. Wikipedia does cover homebrew games and releases in small numbers. In the case of Pier Solar the technological achievements as well as it being the first game of this scale being released on the system in a decade make it absolutely noteable.

The game is to be released in December; then there will be no doubt at all about it´s noteability left, seeing how other "Indie"-games such as Beggar Prince or Last Hope have their Wikipedia-entries. So please do not delete it now, if you do the article will just have to be rewritten again once the game is shipped and the reviews are published. --108 Stars (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did a quick google search for pier+solar+sega and came up with 700.000 hits. There are links from all over the world, but most seem to be German, English, French and Spanish. The game seems to have been covered by almost every single video game related website, forum and blog on the planet. That's certainly impressive for a game developed by some guys in their spare time. - It's even more impressive if you keep in mind, that the working title until January 2008 was "Tavern RPG", and even notable promotion such as the first trailer and this Sega-16.com Interview initially were released under that name (but that apparently changed later to reflect the game's final name). DCEvoCE (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Izno/MuZemike: I insist that the sudden fuss about this article is unbased. Of course other articles on similar games are absolutely worth mentioning here. Just dismissing some sources without reasoning is acting random. As stated before, quick searches via Google bring you tons of results, the media response has been rather big for a small game like this.

Even if you have doubt for whatever reason it is contra-productive to delete the article right now since the release date is so close and the whole article would have to be rewritten again then. There is no crystal ball needed to see that, being in the pre-ordering phase with a set release date tells it apart from some vapoware. So we have a yet unreleased videogame with a set release date in the near future, an article in the Retro Gamer magazine as well as several features on a large website such as Sega-16. And we have similar released games that have Wikipedia-entries. This should at least be sufficient to justify keeping this article for now to update it soon with upcoming review links. --108 Stars (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • @D. Brodale and Marasmusine: The links on the article were used to source the information provided, not all of them can be considered third-party media coverage proving its notability. There is a small paragraph dedicated to third-party media coverage of the game, which includes the Retro Gamer Interview and the article in an unknown Japanese magazine, but also two Portuguese interviews of Brazilian project leader Tulio Adriano: 1 2. During another google search I stumbled across these articles about the game: computerandvideogames.com, rpgsquare.de, retrowelt.com, onlinewelten.com, and seganerds.com. One problem I ran into was that although almost every video game related site on the planet seems to have coverage of the game, in many cases this was reduced to the sites' message boards. I assume that will change once the game is released. The only place to host a review of the public beta/demo was Sega-16.com. - I will try to use some of these links to improve the article as soon as time permits. DCEvoCE (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • @MuZemike: Regarding the game's notability: I am well aware of the fact that lots of hits at google doesn't verify its notability, especially as the majority of links lead to message boards, and not published articles. I merely used google to prove that the game is being discussed at all. What in my opinion does make this game notable is that it's a unique approach of creating a game: It's a video game for a console for which not a single new game has been developed in a decade, and for which producing the required cartridge media alone is quite an achievement in itself. As such, the existence of the game likely won't be covered nor discussed outside of certain circles, so there likely won't be studies nor newspaper or TV coverage, but that certainly would apply to a new Barbie game for Windows Vista as well. DCEvoCE (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Izno: No, Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, but what we are discussing here is an article to a game that already is notable - it's gets its media coverage simply for being developed at all. That is one thing that separates this game from others: If there were hundreds of games in development while the same amount would be released each month, it probably would make each game less notable, but if it's the only one of its kind in more than a decade, and it then gets so much attention throughout the web, then that's what makes it notable. DCEvoCE (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DCEvoCE, by "unreliable" I'm referring to our guideline on WP:Reliable sources: "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I haven't heard of sega-16.com or destructoid, but if the concensus amongst members of the VG project here is that they fulfill this guideline, then that's good enough for me. I await feedback on this. CVG is a good source, but the news story isn't particularly substantial. I'm still leaning towards a keep. Marasmusine (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as severely doubtful. A new Sega MegaDrive/Genesis game being released after this long would have made it into far more media than the limited ones mentioned. Stifle (talk) 07:59, 21 October 2008 (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.
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pier_Solar_and_the_Great_Architects
No tags for this post.