Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legionwood: Tale of the Two Swords

Legionwood: Tale of the Two Swords

Legionwood: Tale of the Two Swords (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)

Completing nomination for IP editor 31.220.203.74. Their rationale, posted on the article's talk page, is posted verbatim below. On the merits, I have no opinion - though I have advised the IP editor that more detail would be helpful, as their original statement is quite brief. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Non-notable. Lacks significant coverage. 31.220.203.74 (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Googling for "Legionwood" on Google Books, News, and News archives turns up nothing much of interest, just a false positive from a fantasy book as well as this Polish article, which, when translated, appears to be a promotional piece. The game does have entries on various websites described in the WP:VG/S source guideline, but they only establish its non-notability further: its Metacritic entry, for example, indicates that it has received no reviews thus far, clearly failing to meet the general notability guideline. CtP (t • c) 16:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. There is at least one review by a professional entity here: http://www.digitallydownloaded.net/2011/03/review-creative-use-of-rpg-maker-vx.html and Googling the term "Legionwood" in Google and Google Images brings up multiple links to the game, coverage on the game and the author's website in the first page. Links to the game continue for the second and third page, as well. In addition, the game appears to have been featured in DIY Gamer's indie gaming supplement here: http://www.indiegamemag.com/free-indie-game-friday-legionwood-alien-dead-doomrl-plactoid/#.UEGqPtbiZEI. There are also many other examples of similar games archived on Wikipedia that do not have listed reviews on Metacritic (such as mods) and I don't see any reason why this particular game is less notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.103.134 (talk) 06:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. It definitely seems notable to me, as it does have reviews and coverage as pointed out by the comment above. I'm confused as to how the game having no Metacritic rating establishes non-notability. The general notability guidelines state that notability is established by having independent sources mention the subject, and there appear to be at least six of these sources in this article. I'm not familiar with the notability guidelines for video games, but I looked at the RPG Maker VX article and found an article for a similar game to this one which appears to have the same amount of coverage and also has a rating of zero on Metacritic. To me, this establishes that there are other indicators of notability, though I am not familar with either of these games, so I cannot comment on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.144.195.14 (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. At least six? Looking at the article's references, 1. isn't independent, 2. doesn't have significant commentary, just basic game data, 3-4. aren't independent, 5. is a review of the game (for what it's worth, it isn't considered a reliable source, and has said to be unreliable in the past [1], 6. is 5.'s review with an interview 7. doesn't have significant commentary, just basic game data, 8. is user-submitted content, 9. is a personal blog with one review, 10. is user-submitted content, 11. isn't significant commentary, 12. isn't independent. Sources should be independent and reliable. 31.220.203.74 (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. This may be the case. Just want to point out though that the RPG Revolution reference is not user-generated content. I happen to have a passing familiarity with that site, and it is a corporate entity (owned and run by iEntry) and members of staff are assigned to write reviews - ordinary users are not able to post a review for a game there.

• Keep. There are two more reviews for the game on N4G.com and here (despite what Metacritic says about the game having no reviews) and the author himself was apparently interviewed in this magazine (page 25). In response to the previous comment, other RPG Maker games featured on Wiki don't appear to have any more coverage than Legionwood or have similar coverage - I don't think it's very common for these types of games to be reviewed on Metacritic etc. though they do get coverage elsewhere, eg. I received my copy of this game on a magazine cover disc (PC Powerplay if I remember, could be something else though)03SadOnions (talk • contribs) 02:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
• comment that's like Aveyond and Eternal Eden though, they werent reviewed on IGN or gamespot, they just have entries there. i looked at them and they dont have any of those professional sources either. Sorry... i'm not from wikipedia but i was linking this page to a friend so he could know about the game, saw it was being deleted and thought i'd comment. 124.180.161.51 (talk) 10:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't wish to duplicate my comment from another point too much, but the N4G link isn't a review, it just links to the Digitally Downloaded review. Then, the interview you link to is again from Digitally Downloaded, a source doesn't appear to be reliable [2]. 31.220.203.74 (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. My rationale for creating this article is that the sources appear to be on par with the sources for other RPG Maker games on Wikipedia. For example, I would point to ==Eternal Eden==, which I used as the basis for Legionwood's article, where RPGFan is not a website listed in WP:VG/S and there are no Metacritic ratings, either. Similarly, the majority of ==Aveyond=='s citations come from RPG Fan as well as Game Tunnel, which is affiliated with the Indie Gaming Magazine that is cited in Legionwood's article. I'm new to Wikipedia, but I must admit that I don't understand how this game is not notable when there are other examples of similar games with a comparable level of coverage. I created this article after I played the game on a cover disc for this magazine - would that be a notable reference? (talk • contribs) 15:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)