Jump to content

Talk:Fursan al-Aqsa: The Knights of the Al-Aqsa Mosque

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 15:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by BuySomeApples (talk) and Thisisarealusername (talk). Nominated by BuySomeApples (talk) at 05:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Fursan al-Aqsa: The Knights of the Al-Aqsa Mosque; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Comment The article may not be notable at all, violating the notability requirement of WP:DYK, as it uses several unreliable sources, including Hooked Gamers, one of the sites that reviewed the game. Additionally, even if it were notable, if all a game is known for is a controversy, then the controversy itself would be notable rather than the game. There are also some WP:UNDUE issues with the writing, as the article describes the perpetrators as "freedom fighters" without clarifying it is a fringe viewpoint. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked the dev's quotes to fix the UNDUE concerns, but I'm pretty sure this meets notability requirements. We have Haaretz, Jerusalem Post and Ynet articles about it, and some games do become notable mostly because of controversy. I don't think having a standalone page about the controversy would be better than the current page. Hooked Gamers wouldn't be enough to meet notability requirements on its own, but it seems reliable enough to include (it seems to have editorial standards and Metacritic counts it). BuySomeApples (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Metacritic counts numerous websites that are considered (by Wikipedia) to be unreliable. It does have metrics where it counts smaller sites less, but we don't have said metrics, it's all or nothing. Hooked Gamers blatantly states they are "volunteer-run" and it does not mention editors, only contributors. It is clear that they are not experts, I don't see why they should be taken any more seriously than someone's blog. It's not mentioned in WP:VG/S, but if it were it would likely be strictly in the unreliable column.
The reason why a solely controversial game cannot be encyclopedic in the absence of reviews is that WP:INDISCRIMINATE requires something to demonstrate its "development, design, reception, significance, and influence". Said game would have no influence, and would fall under WP:NOT. Having influence is demonstrated by some kind of commentary on the substance of the game and not just its broad themes. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you really have a problem with Hooked Gamers, the source can be removed but it's by far not the only or best ref supporting the article. Take the page to AfD if you're still worried about notability, it's the only way to get consensus. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should probably note that, as written, this article would deserve {{no lead}}, so one would have to be added. I did enjoy reading that Hooked Gamers piece, and probably wouldn't have checked it as part of a review, but I'm not seeing the word 'editor' anywhere relevant, so (with regret) it should come out. A cursory google search says this article passes muster for an encyclopedia.--Launchballer 13:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else took out the subsections since the page was a bit short, I expanded it and improved the lede. Took out the Hooked Gamers so it's mostly just news coverage now. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, now this needs a full review. (I'm sorry I didn't say this earlier, but I review oldest first and there's a few ahead, so any other reviewer is welcome to jump in before I do.)--Launchballer 09:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then. The article was nominated within a week of creation, so is new enough. At ~3500 characters, it is long enough. The article properly uses in-line citations and the Copyvio detector finds no issues. Both hooks are interesting, cited inline, and are short enough. The only issue currently is that BuySomeApples, as the nominator, has over 20 DYK nominations. Since we have been in backlog mode since the 8th of this month, every nominator with more than 20 nominations needs to do two QPQs and only one has been done so far. So if you could do an extra one and add it in with the other above, then I can approve this nomination. SilverserenC 16:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That requirement only applies to nominations after 8 March.--Launchballer 16:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, true! Missed that part. Good to go then! SilverserenC 16:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fursan_al-Aqsa:_The_Knights_of_the_Al-Aqsa_Mosque&oldid=1216390487"