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 keep. LFaraone 01:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Hat in Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

apparent publicity for an upcoming game, based almost entirely on unreliable sources. DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

DGG the sources I used fall under the newspaper and blogs clause under Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. Please consider reading my post on the page's Talk page if you haven't done so already. If it makes any difference I have no personal stake in the article's existence; I am not working for Gears for Breakfast.

Of the sources I cited (1 2 3 4 5) which one is unreliable?

The article as it stands is just a stub mentioning some stories written by the video game press. If this is not a valid means for being an article to you, then I would like to point you towards other video game stubs as other examples, which happen to be in the same status of A Hat in Time. Chiefmartinez (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The big problem with pointing out other articles is that their existence doesn't mean that they actually deserve to be on Wikipedia. Sometimes they have notability, but in many cases such articles only exist because someone hasn't found and nominated them yet. I have to say that I'm somewhat undecided on this. There is a lot of buzz about this, but so far the coverage is entirely about the successful Kickstarter campaign. There aren't many articles that only talk about the game rather than focusing solely on its Kickstarter success. So far there isn't that much of a depth of coverage because of this. The Kotaku article that talks about actual gameplay (rather than just talking about screenshots or videos) helps a lot, but it's still a little less than I'd normally like. Don't get me wrong- I do think that this will become huge when it releases. The only problem is that we can't guarantee that it will become as big as everyone is expecting it to be. There are a lot of times where people will expect games to do big things, only for the actual release to never happen or for the game to be so underwhelming that nobody really reports on it. I hope this isn't the case, as I'm tempted to buy a copy of this myself, but it sadly happens more often than we would want it to. I'm still undecided, but I do think that if this does get deleted it should absolutely be incubated or userfied. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 06:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'd like to mirror Tokyogirl79's comment above as I too am undecided. Though the article is blatantly not deletable for the nomination reasons (To me the article doesn't read like that much of a promotion, and the sources are almost entirely reliable), there is the trouble that it seems notable only for its Kickstarter campaign, and though it may make a good article in the future, currently there simply isn't enough information for a decent article. I am, however, tempted to side with keeping the article. There are other sources which haven't yet been used such as this and this, and I think the article could be expanded into more than it currently is quite easily. Samwalton9 (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Obviously notable. Don't know where all this hand wringing above is coming from. - hahnchen 15:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as passing WP:GNG with suitable WP:VG/RS sources already present in the article with the topic being the subject of the features. I too, don't see how these are unreliable sources. The game is upcoming, yes, but it has already received enough independent source coverage. Purely from editorial stand-point, current sources will be excellent development/history sources once the game is released and properly reviewed. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep due to significant changes that have taken place in the past week. The current article is no longer a stub as it used to be, and has several sources backing up every major point in the article. There are also no obvious links that could possibly attract the reader to help support to the game if they wanted to, and the prose has been modified to the extent which I believe fits the NPOV policy better than before. Chiefmartinez (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to point out that Wikipedia's notability guideline is based on existance of quality sources. Your argument seems to be based completely on article's content. This is something routinely ignored by the closing admins. A notable subject can have a terrible article and non-notable subject can have an article with brilliant prose. The deciding factor here is notability. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. Going back to the sources used in the article for references, here they are in the current form: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. The other three (Grant Kirkhope tweet, the Valve SteamGreenlight page, and Kickstarter data) all are related to the game's Kickstarter campaign, which was important in the game's development. I guess in my second argument I was trying to say that the article no longer resembles an advertisement as far as I can tell, which was a criticism by DGG on June 27. Chiefmartinez (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2013 (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.