Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amnesia: A Machine for Pigs

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 keep. Note that a "keep" close does not bar a merge but that will need to be discussed on the article's talk page Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amnesia: A Machine for Pigs

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

Not notable at this time, primarily because of the speculation. One ref to a blog, been speedy tagged for a while due to a flood of IP SPAs that primarily resolve to college campuses "contesting" on the talk page (meatpuppeting), so I decided it would be better to see if anyone else has an opinion. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only source in the article doesn't even justify the title of the article, and in addition, it is a very weak source. Presumably, this game, whatever it is, may become notable in the future. It isn't now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it is notable, because it's the sequel to a well known, well sold, and award winning title that was released two years ago. It's not just notable in the future, it's notable now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.8.238.128 (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note The old reference was removed and a new one added since the article was nominated for deletion. My comment applies to the old one, but I don't think the new one is sufficient to establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The source not only justifies the article's title, but declares it to be the *official* title of the game. I don't see how it can be a 'weak' source when it is an interview with the game's developers serving as the game's initial, official announcement. Joystiq is a reputed blog and has been used has reference countless times for video game articles. I have pruned the article of all speculation as well - it's all facts now, and there's plenty to justify having this article. Sabre (talk) 10:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joystiq if fine for some things, but as a sole source to demonstrate notability? Even NYT blog isn't good for that by itself. Usually we want more than one to begin with, per WP:N. It may be released this year (it MIGHT) but that doesn't make it "notable". That just means it might exist. I just don't get the fascination with creating articles on anything simply because "it exists". Dennis Brown (talk) 11:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's earlier than I would have created an article, but there's nothing suspicious about the source used (in fact it's getting widely reported - [1] [2] [3]). The interest in the previous game Amnesia: The Dark Descent as well as the just re-released Dear Esther means that there is no chance that this won't snowball, "the wait for more info shouldn't be too excruciating, as a big reveal is apparently just around the corner." Deleting this now would be pointless, better to have a basis to be improved as more information is released. Someone another 19:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following Someoneanother's reasoning. I wouldn't have created it now (putting it into the current Amnesia game article) but there's certainly more than enough sources to assert notability even if it just a tease + announcement. --MASEM (t) 19:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This is one of those inevitably to-be notable topics given history and existing coverage. It's still pretty much WP:CRYSTAL and all the sources say the same thing essentially. So I wouldn't call it GNG-ready for a stand-alone article and I think it would live fine as a "sequel" section in Amnesia: TDD until concrete info near the end of the year. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, maybe merge… The custom Google search going along with the WP:VG/S source guideline brings up a plethora of sources when searching for "Amnesia: A Machine for Pigs", but the majority of them only seem to announce basic details. Like others have said, I wouldn't have created the article right now, but it might be worth keeping. A merge per HELLKNOWZ would also be an acceptable route, as the game will inevitably become quite notable in the future. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 18:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and/or merge. I was the one to initially create the article, and I admit it was my mistake. I originally intended it to be a personal article that would later be a full article when more sourced details and definite information were available. For now, I think the article is of a decent enough standard to be kept where it is, especially considering my initial version which was dire (hence why I wanted it to be a personal article).

Considering the success of Amnesia: The Dark Descent, there is no doubt that this game will become a note-worthy topic and have its own article soon enough anyway.

However, feel free to do as you wish, obviously this is out of my hands and it's up to the community to decide on what should be done. I just hope that the details will not be forgotten, and perhaps if the article is removed, it is instead merged with the Amnesia: The Dark Descent page. (Jeimii (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Deletion is obviously not certain, but in any AFD, you can always request the closing admin to 'userfy' the article into your space, so the history and content isn't lost. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:10, 29 February 2012 (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.