Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hello Neighbor

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 and Draftify. While there is a growing consensus that the topic is not yet notable, there's no argument presented that would prevent preserving the content to allow development for the possibility of it becoming so when and if it is released. joe decker ^talk 15:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The draft is at Draft:Hello Neighbor --joe decker ^talk 15:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Neighbor

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

Reviewed article. Prod removed with any concomitant work to add any source. Article is about upcoming game, slated for release in Q2/Q3. Could be delayed though. Fails WP:NOT. WP is not a scheduling engine, which is now established notability guidelines. scope_creep (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The game's notability is quite clearly established by the reliable sources available, which are assessed reliable at WP:VG/S. Keep. (Side note: it looks like the article creator removed the AFD banner. I would fix it but I'm on mobile.) --Izno (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing below a number of "delete" !votes. I'm seeing a three reliable sources covering the work in-depth (that's RPS, GamesRadar), and PCGamer, besides all the announcements (meaning this article meets WP:SIGCOV). Given its release timeframe is this year, a deletion is certainly unwarranted. --Izno (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've listed several RS'es on the talk page. Game is clearly notable, whether or not it is delayed. This is not crystal balling. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It might be worth puting RS'es in the actual article, so they can be viewed and tested, to see if they are reliable verifiable sources. Izno, as a gamer obviously, if it is alpha stage, it will have had a number of reviews, but why were they not added when the article was created? scope_creep (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
scope_creep, 2 things: 1. These are indeed RSes. 2. Usually because the user who started the article is not aware or does not realize how Wikipedia articles need to display notability. --Izno (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sorry about deleting the AFD banner that was a accident, I think the game's worthy of an article it's clearly very popular and other game's have had an article without a definite release date, and they were not deleted, it's not worth deleting it it's already made, just one big edit when it's released and the article is perfect it saves someone the trouble of recreating it. Mr.wilson125 (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Izno It is a hard question to answer. I think it is mostly to do with awful design of the editing environment and the lack of leadership in updating the environment to a manner that ensures that new editors are fully aware and trained before they create an article. I think at the beginning the wiki was chosen as it was the best tool at hand to represent Wikipedia at the time. But now its more of a burden than a help. The current environment is static, it's like 1985 on Dec Vax, just type with Emacs and your away and functionality is bolted on with no design or rigor. And aesthetically speaking it's a dog. Even encarta looked better. scope_creep (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft as the only available information is the quarter release, and that's not guaranteeing us a substantial article in that time, so Drafting allows enough time and path. SwisterTwister talk 01:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Product does not yet exist. No references are provided to show any notability.--Rpclod (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too Soon - The references mentioned above, on the article's talk page, are not sufficient, and (apart from ones based on the kickstarter campaign) appear to be based on press releases. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a clearly notable game, and although it is not yet released, I see no reason for the article to be deleted. Creeperparty568 ~ Cool Guy (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft as compromise. Articles should have sources before entering mainspace. I share concerns that video game articles enter mainspace too easily with just an announcement (see WP:NFF, for comparison). czar 09:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON {MordeKyle} ☢ 03:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON here. Not enough sources. TheMagikCow (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I do want to say, though, that moving into a draft space is a reasonable enough decision. At any rate, I've only seen this receive a smattering of attention from some publications (such as this commentary from Polygon.com). We don't have the kind of coverage that we need for a proper, well-written article. We'll see what happens once the game receives a full, expanded release. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with my fellow editors above. This is, literally, too soon. This Afd can be closed now as delete. If there's any editor who wishes to work on the draft, they can request the same from the closing Admin and work on the same in their user space. Lourdes 13:49, 22 January 2017 (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.