Deletion of Beyond Protocol (video game)

Comment: The articles at GameSpy and Ten Ton Hammer seem to me to just squeak in under the |notability bar.  I reread the user's talk page comments, and I'm not convinced that they clearly say that these articles were published because of advertising money- nor am I convinced that this would render the sources no longer usable for demonstrating notability.  There ''is'' a serious |conflict of interest problem, but the correct response to that would be a neutral rewrite, and for the people who work for Dark Sky to stop editing the article.  There ''is'' one of those editors who has behaved badly and been blocked, but that's outside the scope of this discussion.  I don't think this game is ''very'' notable, but I'm not feeling that I can make a clear call for deletion, either.  Other wise editors better-schooled in the ways of such games may disagree with me, and could even persuade me to change my mind
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:COI)

Comment: but '''clean up''' - What I'm seeing here is one user unprecendently going after one article out of spite. If you look at the other games of this similar MMORTS genre (which were made evident to wyatt already), the user has not been critical of them.  Their wiki articles have existed much longer than this one, yet this one is already nominated for deletion after only a few weeks.  Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saga_(2008_video_game) Saga or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mankind_(video_game) Mankind, MMORTs that has had wiki articles up for extended periods of time yet they are well below wiki standards. Again this article has barely been up for a month yet it already gets put up for deletion by Wyatt WHILE new users are diligently trying to improve it. Wyatt only continually deletes references and cites the vague WP guidelines with little input on how it can be improved.  This article needs clean up and should not have been put up for deletion so prematurely, especially with the new users trying to contribute to this article. Under ewcomer guidelines of not biting the newcomers, Wyatt should be helping to contribute to this article and is acting unfairly but putting it up for deletion.  Due to this, I cannot see how one can assume good faith with Wyatt and it seems that others agree. Give the article a chance, I would also like to point out that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_Protocol_(video_game) Beyond Protocol went live in November and was a beta version before then. Due to this, it has been deleted several times during beta but now users are trying hard to mold this article into shape since it went live with as much coverage as this infantile genre receives. As for Raziel, if you are requesting to be a mediator, you should be working towards a consensus that the two sides can agree to and not making a judgment that will make your mediation bias in nature. As you have already made a decision, I do not see how you can say you can still mediate as you should have a neutral perspective with an opinion and not a position statement
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: no reliable, independent sources that discuss this in any non-trivial way? No encyclopedia article. Dead simple (don't care who wrote the article or who didn't write the article; it's not |notable or |verifiable by our standards no matter who wrote it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: This boils down to  and . Keep voters ought to really focus on this article's merits rather than attacking the nominator or trying to point out that other articles are in a worse shape. As for gaming the system, recreating a |salted page under a slightly different name to avoid the permanent protection on Beyond Protocol would be a fair case of pot calling kettle black if we weren't |assuming good faith. Last but not least, the policies ''are'' binding, in particular |verifiability through |independent reliable sources. I kindly suggest addressing this issue rather than pointing at other poor articles or continuing with the ad hominem against the nominator
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFF||WP:ILIKEIT||WP:SALT||WP:AGF||WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: but '''cleanup''' – We got the Gamespy article as mentioned above. There is also an interview from IncGamers http://www.incgamers.com/Interviews/133/Beyond-Protocol-Interview here talking about the game. There is also a review from Bright Hub http://www.brighthub.com/video-games/pc/reviews/12984.aspx here; I'm not sure if the site itself is reliable, but the credentials of the person doing the review gives it a good sense of reliability. We also have something from Softpedia http://news.softpedia.com/news/Beyond-Protocol-Brings-Strategy-to-the-MMO-World-91548.shtml here. There are other entries out there, but I wouldn't consider them |reliable enough as far as |verifiability is concerned. I think it barely skimps past the notability requirements – multiple reliable, independent sources, and a couple of them provide some decent coverage of the game. Needs some major cleanup, however, to maintain a neutral encyclopedic tone. The behavioral conduct should be left as a separate issue to work out
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V)

Comment: quoting: "the MMORTS genre is very new and the only games which currently occupy it are independently developed games that are not very well known." That's a strong deletion argument you know. No one should object that after sufficient time has passed (days, weeks, years... who knows?) that it ''has'' become well-known and notable, ''then'' we might have a topic worthy of an encyclopedia article. But if there are no reliable sources ''yet'' then no article.  might be a good one for you to read. Wikipedia is not here to help things ''become'' notable; in fact, using it in that way runs counter to what the encyclopedia is supposed to be about
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)