Red Eclipse (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

No consensus reached. The involvement of the (significant) community of the discussed article's topic disturbed the review process. Which lead ultimately to a heated discussion and a non-neutral perception of newly brought up sources, misinterpreted by the deleting admin. Shaddim (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disregarded the struck out !votes and the keep !vote by Shirepirate, a COI editor who made no policy based arguments. That left only you for keeping it. I felt given the numerous other delete !votes and their views that the sources provided did not prove notability, that the overall consensus was to delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, if we take out the biased (?) community authors I tried alone to balance the discussion with a "keep" position. But it seems to late, at this stage of the discussion the situation was already so polarized that the independent WP authors had already made up their mind and not really took a look into the brought up argumentation and sources by me (I got also accused more or less openly without reason & proof to be COI, which was a low strike). The discussion went bad with too less appreciation for the involvement of the community who tried to seriously understand the situation and our complex procedures, which sends out a negative signal for WP involvement. And ultimately I seriously believe (and proved) this is an notable article, without good reason for deletion. Shaddim (talk) 09:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be accusing editors who !voted delete of not looking into the sources like they said they did and instead just voting as a reaction to the canvassed and COI editors. That is a serious lack of good faith. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's go into details: User:Pmedema didn't showed appropriate carefulness by checking the facts he criticized, he called for instance Der Standard a unknown website ("Derstandard.at an unknown website") despite that I brought up a WP link and explanation before, he failed to find Gamestar.hu source as listed reliable source, yet he was so dare to classify it as non-reliable. He accused me on owning of the article ("Please don't feel that you WP:OWN this article."), without reason, I'm was never a major author of it. User:Jbhunley seems be driven not by a neutral perspective anymore as his argumetnation was 80% again the community involvement, used as counter argument ("Utterly shameful") despite the relist and that this should play not at all a role in the deletion request review. Overall, the perception persists that this was not handled from the objective perspective it should be handled. Shaddim (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- I am sorry that you were offended. It was not my intention to offend or not to be WP:CIVIL. - Pmedema (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, appreciated. Indeed the discussion there was heated. Shaddim (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since I was pinged... Yes, the behavior that lead to all of the arguments and puppetry was indeed utterly shameful. Guess what, I can have an opinion of the behavior of participants and the notability of the subject. I even put them in seperate paragraphs - you know the things writers use to separate different thoughts out in text...

My opinion of notability remains the same:

• "Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NGAME. Blogs, wikis and product announcements just are not sufficient..

My opinion on the behavior I witnessed at the AfD remains the same as well:

• "The canvassing and meat puppetry by someone saying they are the developer also leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. Anyone who thinks they need to canvass for support for keep votes, even worse off-wiki canvassing, rather than simply provide the sources necessary to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines, seems to me to be trying to get free advertising and recognition out of Wikipedia when they can not get coverage in their own industry. Utterly shameful."

See two opinions on two issues - this time with bullet points and lots of text to insure proper comprehension. Jbh^Talk 16:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you can have such an opinion but you should have kept it to you as it was "relisted" for a fresh start, no need to create heat instantly again. The community, who was primarly confused about what they can & should do, stepped out already to calm the situation. Shaddim (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting is not for a "fresh start", it's to allow more time for further discussion. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In either case, this opinion was not at all relevant to the question "notable or not". Neither was it up to date, as the community stepped already back, showing good will (where was assuming good faith here? the community was just confused, as they are NOT WP policy specialists). There was no need to create more harm here, this was not a helpful and NPOV contribution to the discussion. Shaddim (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are NPOV, !votes are not. Now, I suggest you move on to whatever other reason you think justifies this AfD review. You may not have liked my comments but they are not what swayed consensus and no amount of discussing them will get this article undeleted. Some policy based arguement from you may but this will not. Jbh^Talk 21:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion: while you !voted for delete, this was notsufficiently backed by an up to date discussion part as you referred to "Blogs, wikis and product announcements just are not sufficient." which addressed not at all the newly brought in reliable sources and the paper. So, no consensus from my side, as the deleting "polling" authors only vaguely referred to non-relevant and non-discussed sources (Blog + Wikis), while they not brought in specific and individual counter arguments against the good half a dozen sources + paper. Shaddim (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing stopping the article from being recreated if there are significant, new, reliable sources to base it on. If the game is indeed notable there will be additional coverage in the future. If there is no additional coverage then, well... the game is not notable. QED. Jbh^Talk 21:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

well, there was no consensus as the brought up sources were not properly addressed by the deletion !voting authors Shaddim (talk) 09:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we get a temp. undelete here? Hobit (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why a temp undelete is necessary. Although I did earlier say that I didn't have the intention to offend and wish to be WP:CIVIL does not change my mind that the closing admin made the right choice for consensus as Delete and indicated by User:Jbhunley - Pmedema (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because fundamentally the debate is about sources and I'd like to see what sources were in the article at the time. One or two of the sources in the AfD were maybe reliable sources. If that's the best that there was, then deletion is a reasonable outcome (though I'd probably have !voted to weak keep based on those sources). But if the sources in the article are from traditionally good RSes and no one discussed why they weren't, I'd say NC might be the right call instead. My guess is there isn't much there, but I'd like to confirm that. Hobit (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is an archived copy on Deletionpedia if you want a quick look. Jbh^Talk 20:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • link here http://deletionpedia.org/en/Red_Eclipse Shaddim (talk) 09:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hobit: Belatedly tempundeleted here. Others: the deletionpedia version is A) nearly illegible and B) infringing the article's authors' copyrights. We shouldn't ever be relying on it. —Cryptic 21:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Once you wade through all the long comments and canvassed SPAs, its easy to see there was a clear consensus that the sourcing was too weak to meet the significant coverage aspect of the AFD. Shaddim's main DRV argument seems to be that people didn't re-evaluate the sourcing after he brought it up, but I repeatedly noted that I looked over his sources, and still disagreed, and multiple editors continued to !vote delete after the bulk of his argument has been made. This is merely someone who doesn't agree with the outcome and wants to do a second AFD. He's free to disagree with the stances of the editors, but the reality is that there is no other way this could have been closed in the realm of reading the actual stances left by the participants. Sergecross73 msg me 15:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I very well was like that the at least several of the participatians did not infact reviewed the current source situation accurate enough and discussed them individuallay and specific. In detail: after the relist SSTflyer !voted delete with just a generic mentioning of the poliy, no discussion. JBHunley responded even worse by 2/3 ranting again the community and unspecific policy dropping. The thing which was most near to an ontopic contribution was "Blogs, wikis and product announcements just are not sufficient." which is in its generality also useless as no one discussed blogs & wikis, the question was if the found and existing many reliable secondary sources constitute notability. Kind of on topic by also unspecific User:Sergecross73 responded "The sourcing is just way too weak.". (without going into details) Pmedema mis-characterized clearly several reliable sources (which indicates a not to deep analysis of the situation and situation), no specific debate on individual sources happend here too. Frankly, I don't see a valuble discussion of the several reliable sources I introduced into the article and presented on the top of the deletion discussion. So, I see no base for an consensus, which was seen by the deleting admin. Shaddim (talk)
    • You have been told that continuing to question !votes is not productive and is a violation of AGF. Now you have simply crossed into the realm of rude. Drop it. Jbh^Talk 11:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC) Struck. Beating my head against a wall is just not worth it. Jbh^Talk 14:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • To say that was the extent of my response is very misleading. I gave a very detailed account of why your arguments were invalid and unconvincing. But again, as everyone keeps telling you, DRV is not a second AFD, it's to discuss the closing decision itself. Your opposers relied on policy and precedent based arguments, so you cannot just discount them like that at DRV just because you don't agree. It's not enough just to disagree on policy interpretation here, you need to show there was a fundamental mistake in reading the consensus (which there wasn't.) You need to look at this from the viewpoint of the closer, while your comments here show that you can't seem distance yourself as a participant of the discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 12:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I opened this request specifically from the perspective of the closer, who saw a consensus when there was no-consensus. Consensus is not equal majority vote, !voting does not substitute a discussion, and I don't see the brought up content debated, so no consensus. Solution proposal: relist the deletion request, debate the brought up sources individually & specifically, and I'm very willing to give into a consensus of whatever kind. Shaddim (talk) 10:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did not just count the !votes. I spent about 30 minutes carefully reading through the discussion before deciding that there was consensus to delete. As other editors have told you above, the sources were looked at and talked about. A don't see how relisting is going to result in anything other than editors stating that the sources are not reliable and you then bludgeoning them. It will just end up being a rehash of the original AfD and what this discussion has become. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no need for a compromise proposal. You convinced no one at the AFD, and have now moved on to DRV where you've garnered zero support. This is veering off into WP:IDHT territory. There was clear consensus to delete at AFD, and clear consensus there was no wrong-doing here at DRV. If you can't see that, then I seriously question your ability to identify a consensus at all. Sergecross73 msg me 14:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• While I did continue following the AfD discussion after I voted and continue to stand by my vote (I would have changed it otherwise), I disagree with the notion that the initial COI involvement affected the rest of the AfD discussion. There were several days of discussion after the initial COI incident that focused on sourcing and notability, and no one voted to delete the article on the sole basis of COI and canvassing (of the two people that mentioned it when deleting, DarthBotto's subsequent comments make it clear that the delete vote was because of notability and sourcing, and Jbhunley provided clarification on it in this discussion.) I'd like to assume good faith in both trusting that no one wants to delete an article just because of canvassing and COI, and in trusting the closing admin would have discounted any votes that seemed to imply such an action. ZettaComposer (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, good point, DarthBotto was another person who, like myself, made it clear that they had revisited the sourcing after it was presented, and still stood by his delete stance. Sergecross73 msg me 16:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• To be clear, I reviewed all of the sources I saw in the article and what I could find in the AfD. I may have missed something in the walls of text but I did my own BEFORE as well and found nothing I considered meeting our notability requirements. If the OP wants to insure no source they present is missed I strongly suggest that they a) make short, clear statements when the present a new source at AfD and b) not WP:BLUDGEON the delete votes. Continuing to question other editors' votes after the discussion closed is neither proper not productive behavior. Jbh^Talk 16:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• While I did indeed find the canvassing and meat puppets to be compromising the AfD discussion, I was by no means an opinionated editor beforehand, (I hadn't even heard of the game), and I did consider the sourcing to be inadequate, as it was based around minor mentions, rather than something substantive. By my own reckoning, the only argument I actually engaged in was when Shaddim tried to discredit me by saying that I tried to sound knowledgeable by clinging to buzz words that I didn't actually understand the meaning of. He further tried to argue that Wikipedia does not follow similar notability guidelines as an encyclopedia by linking up a Wikimedia essay that was about formatting, but not content. All in all, I believe consensus has been affirmatively reached and simply saying that our opinions are incorrect does no good. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 22:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close per my statements above. (Just to get the formalities out of the way) Jbh^Talk 00:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is Shaddim's first AfD [1] so we should give them a bit of slack. @Shaddim, that bit of slack is now at an end. Let me be perfectly clear - your accusations that other editors' opinions are somehow invalid because they did not directly address what you wanted them to is firstly an assumption of bad faith and that you continue after several editors here have said they carefully considered the sources is, in my firm opinion, veering into the realm of personal attacks. You are questioning these editors honesty and integrity. It rude, uncalled for, quite inappropriate and now needs to stop. You have presented your arguments over and over - they have been rejected. Drop the stick and move on.

  I also suggest you go read through several AfD discussions to see how they go. Seldom do you see point by point refutation of sources. You see editors expressing opinions based on their knowledge of and experience in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Often there is disagreement but verbose repetition of discounted arguments and WP:BLUDGEONing behavior (read it) is never recieved well and often is counterproductive because people may simply start to ignore you.

  Please take this as a learning experience and an example of how not to behave in deletion discussions. You can, of course, follow this advice or ignore it. If you choose to ignore it and continue this type of behavior beyond this Deletion Review discussion I can pretty much guarentee you will end up at ANI for disruption.

  Have a good rest of the weekend and try to remember it is only Wikipedia. Jbh^Talk 15:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: please don't focus on me as editor (if or if not I'm experienced here doesn't matter, I can read polcies), please focus on Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion. Also, contrary to the claim it was totally obviously and non ignorable that the sources were NOT properly reviewed by several editors, seeing the glaring mistakes made. Sorry, this has nothing to do with personal attacks but stating the obvious. So, I kept my "keep" position for a good reason and no consensus was reached. (I you would argue there was a majority vote, that would be something else). About "Seldom do you see point by point refutation of sources." which is clearly a problem, obviously we should! Refuting sources point by point might be more work (maybe an similar amount of work the same amount it takes to bring them up) but ultimately is required for an serious discussion instead of "guessing" and "stomach feelings" Shaddim (talk) 09:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I direct you to my earlier statement "repetition of discounted arguments and WP:BLUDGEONing behavior (read it) is never recieved well and often is counterproductive because people may simply start to ignore you." Jbh^Talk 13:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• weak endorse I'd have !voted to keep based on the sources, the Indygamer one in particular is great, but the discussion result was to delete and the closer closed within discretion even if I disagree with the outcome (this is not AfD2, etc. etc.). Hobit (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we would have an democracy with majority vote, it would be fine. But we try to apply policies, fitted by discussion and reaching a consensus, a painstaking process (a majority vote system would be faster and more productive, indeed). There was no consensus, but a pretty bad discussion ignoring facts and focusing negatively on the community involvement. (Side note, I totally hate that again we bite the newcomers, they tried to be constructive but faced only bureaucratic resistance and blame instead of guiding help) Shaddim (talk) 09:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • My belief is that none of the sources but one were strong enough to be an open-and-shut case of meeting the requirements of WP:N. At that point, there is a lot of community discretion in interpreting our guidelines and how the sources relate. So as I said, it's not the outcome I think we should have, but the closer closed it correctly. And IMO, the discussion wasn't so flawed (though I disagree with it) to require a relisting. I agree with you on WP:BITE btw. Hobit (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]