PULSAR: Lost Colony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Game appears to fail WP:GNG, with the only two publications that are reliable and covered it being Rock Paper Shotgun and The Games Machine, therefore causing it to fall just short of the typical threshold. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Eurogamer mentioned them too in an article and they're on the reliable list. I know Game Rant isn't on that list, but they covered them 2 weeks ago and appear to be an decent publication. I think the article just needs to be updated, and I have no issue with doing that. Bobtinin (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the link to Eurogamer to confirm whether it is WP:SIGCOV? Game Rant does not count towards notability, per WP:VG/S. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Mentioned in passing as having accepted by Steam Greenlight. MimirIsSmart (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Game Rant is fine for topics "of low potential for controversy such as general pop culture topics or game information", which a mundane space game falls under. Cortador (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also found a GotY list on Giant Bomb that talks about the game to a significant degree, though am not sure if taken together this is enough. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on just how much there is about it and whether it isn't user generated. It would be best to link the list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:38, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably referring to [2]. ~ A412 ^talk! 19:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, that article was not written by Giant Bomb staff, just Danny Baranowski, who I am pretty sure is not a member of their staff. Being essentially a reposted blogpost, I don't believe it qualifies as reliable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it has to be written by an official staff member. We don't usually discount articles written by freelancers or guest columnists if it's in a reliable publication. WP:VG/S states for Giant Bomb: "Reliable for reviews and news content submitted in the site's blog by the site's editorial staff." --Mika1h (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The final discussion on Giant Bomb at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 116#Situational sources states that it is "reliable only if written by staff writers". I believe you are misinterpreting that description. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think I am. The context in that discussion was about distinguishing between staff written and user-generated content. I've not seen anything specifically dismissing freelancers/guest writers. This piece is not user-generated since it has "Giant Bomb Staff" on the byline. For example, other reliable sources, like Rock Paper Shotgun have dozens of contributors (i.e. not "staff writers"), we do not dismiss articles written by them. --Mika1h (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was a guest writer, but that is not the same as a freelance "contributor". Baranowski is a composer by trade and as far as I know only wrote that one article for them? It's the exact same as citing the opinion of you, me, or some person on social media. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, it's very much the same as a piece written by a freelancer/guest columnist. It is vetted by "Giant Bomb Staff". Something written by you or me on Giant Bomb wouldn't get that treatment. It would be user-generated content, which this article by Baranowski is not. --Mika1h (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - Giant Bomb's coverage is fairly thin but I think it's just enough to count as SIGCOV and with the two proper reviews it just barely manages to reach notability. --Mika1h (talk) 07:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 14:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article needs work, but the sourcing is is just about good enough. Cortador (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a run-of-the-mill Kickstarter game; I think it needs more development coverage for a Keep. One from 4players but not enough. IgelRM (talk) 12:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]