Talk:Operation Rainfall

Facebook quote

Other than Siliconera's interpretation, is there any actual evidence that NOA was specifically referring to the Operation? I know that it is quite likely, but is there actual proof? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 15:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

IGN, or atleast one of their employees, has tweeted that that NOA is expected to give a reaction/response in the coming day or two. But that's just an example that shows NOA is aware, it wasn't about this particular situation with Siliconera. If it is strictly Siliconera's interpretation, I suppose we could re-word it accordingly... Sergecross73 msg me 16:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This article should be deleted because it is not remotely notable or appropriate for this website.

And that's that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.102.226.119 (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

How do you define notability? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 03:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Or "appropriate", for that matter... Sergecross73 msg me 12:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, neither of the arguments make sense. The movement is clearly notable since it has been covered by sites such as IGN, Eurogamer, and Nintendoworldreport, etc. I also don't see how covering a topic that has been covered by reliable sources is inappropriate in any way.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 06:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Except things make the run across numerous significant gaming news sites all the time that might not be considered notable by any other measure. A cool Bayonetta costume at a convention, a guy with a really old Duke Nukem Forever preorder. Are all these things Wikipedia material? - Crabbattler (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

If someone has enough third party reliable sources that can establish notability, then an article can be made about just about anything. The examples you give though, sound like they'd probably be more appropriate as a small, sourced mention in an already established article or something. Sergecross73 msg me 20:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It is also unlikely that whole articles would be written on a person who simply had a good looking costume. Most likely if it got coverage it would be small part of a larger article and an article on the person would be a issue of undue weight. I don`t think that is the case here.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 04:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

But this happens all the time between gaming sites with practically any topic imaginable, it doesn't have to be people. Take the Wii Party Station. It has received far more coverage over a far longer period of time than this article, mainly because it's hilarious. It's a wacky thing that doesn't even exist. Yes, you could add it to the Nyko article, but you could add Operation Rainfall to the Nintendo or relevant game articles. I'm curious what the qualifying difference is, if any. Is it because the editors of the given news sites are following Wii Party Station as more of a subjective interest than actual news? Is it because it only relates to one or two existing Wikipedia articles rather than three or four? (that seems arbitrary) Or is it honestly something that should have an article? (I guarantee you it could be as long as this one, if that's somehow the qualifier)

The specific example isn't really my point, although it gives you something concrete that isn't hand-waving. My point is that a lot of topics are propelled to technical notability within the closed sphere of video game websites, but having at least some diversity of media coverage demonstrates truer noteworthiness. - Crabbattler (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It's hard for me to answer without out seeing any of the discussion in relation to the deletion of that specific article, or the article itself, and I've never heard of the thing myself. It could be any number of things; maybe that article was written poorly or written with non-reliable sources? In general though, it usually comes down to the reliability of sources (blogs, fansites, message board posts...they're not wikipedia reliable a vast majority of the time) or that there simply isn't much to be said about something. (If there's 20 sources of something that all say the same information, and that information is one sentence worth of info, it's usually merged into another related article.)

Additionally, if you aren't happy with my answers, you could take it up with WikiProject Video Games. I reference them whenever I have questions about video games related articles... Sergecross73 msg me 12:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, Nintendo responded directly to the initiative. That makes it more notable than random high quality cosplay. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 07:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but conversely, this was over the span of four days, after which Nintendo basically said "no", and that was it. Notability is not temporary. MSJapan (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Also Nintendo didn't respond "directly" to Operation Rainfall. They responded to their Facebook fans. Certainly this includes people who have an interest in the release of the games but don't associate themselves with Operation Rainfall. In any case as they only address their audience as "fans" and only posted the response on Facebook, the burden of evidence would be on proving it's a direct response to a specific organization that would never have happened otherwise (companies respond to anxious fans of their Facebook pages all the time). Some news sites have made this leap, although without anything to back it up, so I don't think it's appropriate. Another reason I doubt the relevance of Operation Rainfall, specifically their Amazon Monado push, is the low numbers on other page activity indicators, such as customer discussions. Less that 200 post by a lot of the same people. Reaching the top of Amazon day-by-day game sales may require less orders than you might otherwise think... - Crabbattler (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)