Talk:DarkwebSTREAMER

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 March 2024. The result of the discussion was keep.

Notability

Someone placed a notability banner on this, and the page creator has removed it with edsum Multiple sigcov sources. I don't agree. Four sources are given but both source 1 and source 3 are by Spader, E. and published in Kotaku Australia so they count as one for SIGCOV. I'll deal with those together as source 1. Here is my source analysis. We can discuss this, but in short, I do not see that we have multiple SIGCOV sources.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Sirfurboy
Spindler, Emily (2023-08-23). "Local Spotlight: darkwebSTREAMER Is An Occult Streaming Sim Not For The Faint-Hearted". Kotaku Australia. Retrieved 2023-11-25. Spindler, Emily (2023-07-28). "Here Are Your PAX Aus Indie Showcase Winners For 2023". Kotaku Australia. Retrieved 2023-11-25.		See Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources articles published from 2023 onward should generally be avoided.	~ The articles constitute significant coverage in depth, but are primary and not secondary, being reviews of a new game.	✘ No
"darkwebSTREAMER is a disturbing emergent narrative experience". www.gameshub.com. 2022-11-22. Retrieved 2023-11-25.		Gameshub is an online publication news and reviews. It has editorial oversight. It is not, as far as I can see, examined in Video games/sources, but no clear reason not to accept it as reliable.	~ The coverage in the article is significant in depth but the source is primary in that it is a review of a new game.	~ Partial
"More diversity needed in booming gaming industry, Adelaide designer says". ABC News. 2023-10-16. Retrieved 2023-11-25.</ref>	Interview		~	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

So the question is what to do? This is an in-development game. As such it seems reasonably obvious that, lacking some very major coverage, this will be WP:TOOSOON. The game may be suitable for an article one day, but I don't think we are there yet. Options are:

Draftify and develop this in draft with the hope it becomes notable
Restore the notability banner and give it a while for the creator to develop the page per WP:DEMOLISH
Take it to AfD.

I'll restore the notability banner for now, as I did not originally place it. That would appear to be a 2-1 consensus for the banner, and that is the least disruptive move for the page creator. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too soon isn't a guideline. I'd prefer if we stuck to following guidelines instead. Also, a review in an independent example is a clear example of a secondary source. I'm baffled by the sentence "the source is primary in that it is a review of a new game". What about something being a review makes it a primary source?

Reading such an assertion being made, raises to my mind at least, serious concerns as to editorial competence.Jack4576 (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you will note that I suggested it is "partial" and not a "no". Rather than casting aspersions on my competence, you might like to consider what I wrote and why. The key clause is "in that it is a review of a new game." I grant that this is terse, but should also lead you to an understanding that when we look at sources from the point of view of historiography (which is what we are doing when considering whether a source makes a subject notable) that the question is not whether the source is about the thing itself, where the thing itself is a piece of art (broadly construed) and the review is thus secondary to the primary work itself. The question being asked is whether the review is stating that this is a piece of notable art, or whether it is a report that the art exists. A report that something is new and a description of what it is is, prima facie, the latter. If it is the latter, it is primary (being reporting), but if the review contains opinion and a description of why this is notable (whether it is new or not), that information is secondary (although early opinion must often be handled with care). See, for instance, how WP:PRIMARYNEWS describes book reviews. But also see any course on historiography. The question of what is primary or secondary depends on the question asked of the source.

So again, I suggested this one was partial, and in January I indicated I was happy to discuss that. The question you would ask of that review is how does it demonstrate that this game is exceptional, notable, different, groundbreaking? What evidence does it supply for that assessment? What does it provide from which an article can be written?

Adding sources to an article is not an annoying box ticking exercise. The sources are what the article is built from. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're just demonstrating ever more clearly with the above comment that you firmly do -not- have a workable understanding of what the term 'secondary source' means on this website.

Even by the standards of the (non-guideline) essay that you've linked, news publications are ... "a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events". Reviews are an analysis/commentary on a subject.

There is simply no basis at all to say that these reviews are a primary source in relation to the subject. Sorry, no.

"The question being asked is whether the review is stating that this is a piece of notable art, or whether it is a report that the art exists." -> This is a false dichotomy; and isn't based on any site consensus or guideline. A review can be a secondary source for the mere proposition that a thing exists. Regardless, we have more here anyway, the reviews actually go into commentary/detail about the thing.

"The question you would ask of that review is how does it demonstrate that this game is exceptional, notable, different, groundbreaking?" -> This choice of phrasing is not the question/test applied under GNG policy. Jack4576 (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've since added coverage from the NYT, PCGamer, and another rpg-focused website to address some of the concerns raised in the banner. Jack4576 (talk) 10:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copy these to the AfD for you. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]