Talk:Riese: Kingdom Falling

2009 Deletion nomination

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 September 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

2009 Deletion discussion

This is a web series that has already been written up by numerous news sources and has a considerable web presence which is obvious when search engines such as Google is utilized.

It has garnered a support of over 3000 fans on facebook, and is actively producing content via behind-the-scenes, trailers and the ARG.

In addition, it is noteworthy as one of the first web series to use trained animals (wolves) in their cast ensemble.

Finally, it has been said to follow in the foot steps of other web series such as The Guild and Sanctuary.

Links to support this point: http://www.argn.com/2009/09/riese_the_series_delivering_transmedia_with_a_side_of_steampunk/ http://www.cliqueclack.com/tv/2009/08/21/webisode-clack-riese-the-series/ http://www.examiner.com/x-18880-Internet-TV-Examiner~y2009m8d20-Steampunkinspired-scifi-web-series-Riese-coming-soon-to-a-laptop-near-you-Video http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-304828

I've left an explanation of the problems I see with this article on your talk page, found at User talk:Rctheaet; the next administrator to consider this speedy-deletion request may take that into account. I think it's marginally possible that reliable sources could be provided, so I haven't immediately deleted this, but my advice would be to act very quickly. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Left on 'Rctheaet' discussion page:

With reference to the "hangon" tag you applied to the above-captioned article, I've examined the sources you've provided. Unfortunately, what you term "news sources" are not what Wikipedia calls reliable sources. As a general rule, sources to bolster the notability of a topic are required to be demonstrably expert, in the sense that they have to be subject to some sort of editorial oversight or be themselves notable. Blogs and forums, for the most part, usually don't qualify, and I don't see anything here that does qualify. (By the way, supporting material on the talk page isn't usually considered when assessing articles; it has to be part of the article.)
Also as a general rule, Wikipedia articles are about topics that are already notable because of their existence, not because of things that haven't happened yet. I gather from the article that this series has not actually been viewed by the public yet; that would make it nearly impossible for there to be sufficient notability for this to be the subject of an article. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; we have no way of knowing if something is going to be notable or not until it actually happens. Until the series actually is available to the public, the material here is pretty much just advertising, and that's not permitted under Wikipedia policies.
I suggest that you hold off on this article until the programme actually achieves enough in the way of reliable sources to be the subject of a Wikipedia article; there is no barrier to your remaking the article at that point. For some general background information about what qualifies as reliable sources, you can follow the link earlier in this paragraph, or you can look at WP:Your first article and WP:Why was my article deleted? You can also leave me a note if those sources don't provide information that you require. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

--

My issue with this is the idea of its notability and existence. There are enough sources, whether fitting the definition of 'reliable', to tantamount to the proven existence of this concept. Which leads to my second point, the article itself is a descriptive, encyclopedic summary of what the show is and the people behind it. There is no attempt at self-promotion beyond stating, in all actuality, what the show is, or any sort of message encouraging persons viewing the page to join, follow or align themselves with the show. It is simply descriptive.

As for sources, at the very least the Examiner, a general news page dealing all topics both nationally and internationally, does have selected writers and editors, and is credited as one of our sources. The preponderance of supplemental material supporting the claim proposed by The Examiner, while not being 'reliable' as defined by Wikipedia, should still serve as evidence to support the claim issued by the previous mentioned publication.

If it's chosen for deletion until it airs, that is acceptable. My issue is that the sources do provide enough content to demonstrate that this concept, which is factually described here, does indeed exist. If need be I will re-post when what is defined as a 'reliable source' proves its existence beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'm sorry, obviously I failed to be clear. I never doubted the existence of the subject; what is in question is its notability. The mere existence of a subject is not sufficient in and of itself for it to be the topic of a Wikipedia article; the subject has to be notable -- unusual, special, different, better than its peers, widely discussed -- and that notability has to be verifiable by reference to a number of arm's-length, third-party, expert sources writing in reputable publications. These are concepts that are basic and required for every Wikipedia article; you can learn more about them, as I noted for you elsewhere, by looking at WP:Your first article and other introductory material. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am in some doubt as to whether the article in question has made a credible claim of notability, I've decided to submit it to a process called articles for deletion that will allow a wider range of opinions to be canvassed from the broader Wikipedian community. Instructions as to how to participate in that discussion will be available from a link on the article itself. And if you have any further questions, don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talk page (you can do that by clicking on the word "talk" after my signature).

IPhone (and iPod Touch) game

Should we mention the iPhone/iPod Touch game associated with the game? It can be found here. --V2Blast (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 Season?

Will there be a second season? --77.180.50.18 (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Kingdom Falling"

Did the web series use the title "Kingdon Falling" ? If not the opening line is incorrect, and this article should really only be about the TV seties, with reference to the web series as its predecessor. Or the page should be moved. -- Beardo (talk) 03:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified the titles in the lead. The web series was reworked and expanded into the TV series, so it's not simply a predecessor, and doesn't warrant a separate article. Barsoomian (talk) 03:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Riese: Kingdom Falling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]