Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endless Online (2nd nomination)

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 of the debate was no consensus. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Endless Online

As indicated on Talk:Endless Online, particularly Talk:Endless Online#Editting [sic], this article doesn't belong on Wikipedia. There are no usable references that can be used, and it doesn't seem that they will ever come about. Until reliable references come about, most of the article will be original research, which isn't allowed. Running "Endless Online" with the quotes through Google will indicate that many websites refer to the game, however they are not that great as references and they all say the same thing. These clone references give a simple synopsis of the game, and not anything else noted in the article. References for all those other facts are not available. If this article can't satisfy the fundamental verifiability and no-original-research rules, then they do not belong on Wikipedia. Note that this article has been nominated for deletion before. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 03:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Information about a changing online game is never going to have a solid reference. Even much more popular games, which have major web sites and published guides - these are never as complete and up to date as the games themselves. I would contest the idea that a player who uses the game is doing original research: the game is a source of information about itself. -Goldom 莨夊ｩｱ 謚慕ｨｿ 03:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • A game itself really can't be used as a source, in my opinion. It's not a document asserting facts with some level of evidence, it's an array of code and graphics created for entertainment. Experiencing them and then writing the experience on Wikipedia would fall under original research: research not documented anywhere else. It's like saying a person is a reference because a person can listen to them and then write it down on Wikipedia. And if there can't be solid references for 80% of the page, then it breaks the fundamental verifiability rule. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 03:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    • As a comparion, think of a movie. A movie is also mostly 'graphics created for entertainment'. But certainly if someone watched a movie, then wrote an article about the movie summarizing it, this would not be original research - the movie itself provided the information. I see a game as no different. An exception would be if the writing were not merely summarizing, but inferring, such as if a user came up with their own interpretation of a movie, and wrote the article about that. But mere description I feel is fair. -Goldom 莨夊ｩｱ 謚慕ｨｿ 03:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
      • No, using the film/game itself as a source is most certainly original research as outlined in Wikipedia:No original research.--Sean Black ^(talk) 04:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
        • In response to this comment, just so I can understand, I'm not sure what you're referring to - this part seems to me to say it is ok. "Primary sources present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; film, video or photographs... Research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged." Where does it say not to do this?
        • In relation to this article in particular, a great deal of the facts on this article I found with little effort just looking at the link provided on the page to the official site, and surely many more such as "Endless Online features a global chat function which acts as a chat room that every player in the game world can see." would fall under "makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge" - anyone who played the game would know this. While there are some facts on the page which would qualify, such as stating players motivations and feelings, and I agree should be removed, I feel there is sufficient content on the page verifiable from available sources that it should not be entirely deleted. They may not currently be cited, but there is a pretty good number of sources shown at http://www.endless-online.com/links-fan.html, which I found from this article, which could easily do so. I'd reccommend cleanup, and citing these pages, but not outright deletion. -Goldom 莨夊ｩｱ 謚慕ｨｿ 05:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
          • I figured I might as well just go ahead and do it myself - I've cited nearly every part of the page from available sources, and removed some that seemed inherantly unverifiable. There's only one (citation needed) still remaining, but it could also probably be dealt with by someone who knows the game. I don't play it myself, but was able to find the rest just from the links given by the game's official page. -Goldom 莨夊ｩｱ 謚慕ｨｿ 05:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - It meets WP:WEB condition 3, and reference to a site in order to verify claims made by the site itself is acceptable. Coverage should be expanded, but that's a sign that it's a stub, not that it should be deleted. Captainktainer 09:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Question; How does it meet WP:WEB condition 3. That could change my vote if verifiable. Steve block Talk 19:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Why should it change your vote? This is not a web page, is it? Would you vote keep on "Wikipedia" if there's evidence it meets WP:MUSIC? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Captainktainer. Kimchi.sg | talk 11:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Google searches reveal there is a large amount of genuine interest in the site. Bige1977 16:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete- Although many people think this should be kept, as I made point of in the discussion article, and as Messed Rocker has said before, things need to be verifiable via credible sources. Since this HAS NO VERIFIABLE DATA, it has no place on wikipedia. I play this game, and this is the last thing I want, but if wikipedia needs virification, and we can't give it, what else are we to do? DELETE IT. t.z0n3
  • Comment I'd like to point out, for the record, that [[1]] actually says otherwise about the "no verifiable data." If we take the official site of a product and a product to be parts of the same entity, documenting claims a site made about itself is perfectly acceptable. Documentation of claims to the contrary, or documentation of lack of evidence, is also acceptable. Take a look at the page as it exists now; it's fairly heavily footnoted and contains links to other sources that review or provide legitimacy for Endless Online. Captainktainer 18:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep on the exact same grounds in the last AfD. I really don't think verifiability is a problem here. The way I see it, games and game publishers can be used as a source (and they'll undoubtedly be more than glad to provide information about their games!), that's just normal encyclopedic research. For example, if I state "Ultima VII runs in 320x200 MCGA graphics mode", I don't need a frigging game researcher to write that in a peer-reviewed paper before I can use that fact. It's written in the game box. ("256-color VGA graphics". There it is. I kid you not. I can provide a scan and I swear I won't modify it.) I can install the game and run it in DOSbox and by golly, it runs in 320x200 MCGA mode. This, however, would be Original Research: "Baten Kaitos is an example how the Japanese are moving away from cloning Ultima III and going toward cloning Ultima IV: the player's relationship with the gameworld is affected by their choices. The game features plotlines and clicés of Final Fantasy series, game mechanics of Magic: the Gathering and marrying it with good doses of BioWare Humour®." That's original research and op-edding. "New analysis and synthesis", schoolbook example of what's frigging underlined in WP:NOR. That belongs to my game blog, not Wikipedia.
  In order to provide accurate information, we have to accept the game publisher as an accurate source of information, as they know best what the game is about. What we shouldn't allow them to do is to write the articles. The OR policy doesn't say anything about New collections of sourced facts, because if those are banned, we'd ban ourselves by definition. In closing, I swear I'll quit now. I suck. I know. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • No you don't! I empathize with you. I don't want to delete it, but in the opinion of myself and MR, that is Original Research. t.z0n3
  • This is what I was trying to say. And if an article about a primary source cannot use that source as a reference, a huge amount of articles would have to be deleted. I looked around, and could not find a -single- article about a book, movie, or game that cited someone else when summarizing itself. If anything, they cited the book/movie/game itself, or it most cases, nothing at all, since it should be clear that's where it came from. Again, not for drawing new conclusions, but to say what the source itself says. I know two wrongs don't make a right, but I don't think they are wrong. WP:NOR says right out that compiling info from primary sources is encouraged. Only if that info is used to draw new conclusions is it original research. If you stated that the protagonist in Crime and Punishment is named Raskolnikov, it would be absurd to cite a book review that said so. The book is a verifiable and undeniable source for this information. -Goldom 莨夊ｩｱ 謚慕ｨｿ 00:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The information published on the site itself isn't original research, and is actually in fact good references. There was insufficient source citing, and sources didn't seem probable. I remember reading the site, and I don't remember the information being there. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 23:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:V states If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. If no third party reputable sources can be found, it should be deleted. Steve block Talk 22:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • There are quite a few 3rd party sources, just look at the links page on the game's official site - there's 15 or 20 external links there. As for them being reputable, I would say that their being listed by the game's creators is confirming their accuracy. -Goldom 莨夊ｩｱ 謚慕ｨｿ 00:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It is circular to verify information about a company or organization using links that the company provides as a justification for considering those sources reliable. JoshuaZ 00:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Indeed. And there's something that doesn't seem right about calling fan sites "reputable [and] reliable" sources. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 00:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Reluctant delete. Whatever descriptions of the game Google turns up, such as [2], are nothing more than one paragraph entries, hence this game lacks 3rd party reliable sources. Kimchi.sg 03:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: To last few replies. I don't see why the company linking to these sites removes their reputabilty (if that's a word). It's not like this is an article about them, and they'd have a reason to lie to make themselves look good. But even if those are thrown out, a yahoo search for ("endless online" mmorpg) turns up 17,000 results. Just after a few minutes browsing them, I'm sure there's enough validation in there. The simple fact remains, this article now has more citations than I've -ever- seen about a video game, with the exception of a couple extremely popular titles. I would also just like to point out again, I don't want anyone thinking I have a personal agenda or bias here. I don't play this game, and I've never even heard of it before this AfD. I just think that this article has well above-average content and information to find, compared to most other non-mainstream games. -Goldom 莨夊ｩｱ 謚慕ｨｿ 05:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Here's just something for people to chew: Should the verifiability criteria put as the question "can verifiable third-party sources be found?", or the question "is there a possibility that verifiable third-party sources can be found?" It's almost like the question on Original Research: "Are there sources?" vs. "Can the statements be sourced?" I'm personally always leaning on the latter of these interpretations: It's not OR if something can be sourced to some work, it's Verifiable if the primary source exists, and there's a possibility that some independent source will show up and verify the claims.
  These rules are in Wikipedia to stop crackpots from pushing their theories as undisputedly valid knowledge. The rules aren't meant to stop discussing cult fictional works - that's what notability criteria is for! What I'm seeing here is trying to delete a work by simply stacking charges: we're proposing the article's deletion as a matter of technicality. "You can't verify this." The way I see is this: Could a reputable game magazine cover this game? (I'm guessing someone might already have.) Could some notable blogger review this game, for example? (Probably, and may already have.) Could some researcher go and conduct a methodical study of EO's player base? Now, you can ask these questions, and answer is a definite "maybe". Ask similar sort of questions about some crackpot scientific theory, and you get a definite "hell no, not even probable". --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• You misunderstand the policies and what they are for, then. The three policies, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR are to be taken together as parts of a whole, and not to be applied separately. You also misunderstand WP:V which quite clearly states articles should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers. Not facts that should be published, or will be published, but have been published. Your assertion that if there exists a possibility that verifiable third-party sources can be found the information can be added and the article exist are at odds with the policy. We could hypothetically bandy about coulds all day, but at the end of the day WP:V clearly states The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
• Now that shouldn't mean stuff can't get added and then verified later, but given this article has existed since July 2005, surely that's ample time for people to find the sources they claim could exist. I'll quite happily change my vote if reliable, reputable, third party sources are found. Steve block Talk 19:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• However, if you go back and read WP:V again closely, particularly at the end in the section on self-published sources, you'll find that to document claims about an entity, WP:V allows for the source itself to provide documentation about itself, so long as that information has not been challenged by a third party. We're not using the information to document claims about another person or party, and since a lot of the information in this article is fairly basic material, the claims as they stand are fine. Captainktainer * Talk 20:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Circular argument see my statement above that WP:V states If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. Otherwise you seem to suggest any website can be used as a reliable source on which to write an article about it, and thus every website should have an article. If that's true, I state here and now I want dibs on writing the article about my blog. You can source information from the primary source itself, but it cannot be the entire content of the article. Wikipedia is not a business directory and Wikipedia is a tertiary source, not a secondary source, which is what utilising only primary sources makes us. Steve block Talk 20:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• I still don't see why the citations as listed are not reputable. Who, besides people who play the game and take the time to publish their own material on it, would know better? If you look through all the 3rd party sites, and the official site, they are all in agreement - there's no conflict of opinion on any of the information in the article, and given none of them have any reason to lie about it, let alone -all- of them lie about it, I see no reason not to believe it. Granted, self-published website may not be as widely reliable as say, a professional printed game guide, but web sites are quite commonly used as sources on wikipedia, not to mention I've seen way more errors in printed guides than I have on web sites of people who actually play the games themselves. And no, that doesn't mean every website should have an article, per notability, which this game certainly has.-Goldom 莨夊ｩｱ 謚慕ｨｿ 20:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• This isn't about who would know better; after all, who would know better what members are in an unsigned band of schoolkids? Wikipedia is not a guide to the internet, it is an encyclopedia, and as such, requires third party, reputable sources on which to base articles. If this article has them, fair play, if not, well, sorry, but then it should be deleted. Wikipedia isn't the place to prove a topic's notability, it's a place to summarise it. If there is nothing to summarise, we can't have an article. Steve block Talk 20:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• I still maintain that this is a slippery slope. If you start demanding reputable third-party sources for each and every separate assertion in Wikipedia, you end up with a lot of work. A practical example where we end up with this logic would be this: Let's see, today I read about Deep Impact; I obviously can't believe a single word about the plot, because the plot summary is completely unsourced. Further, the article cites a disreputable source (IMDB, a film database based on user submissions). And the most shocking thing is that this is not an isolated incident; articles frequently include plot summaries without providing any other source besides the movie themselves (presumably, as it's not even cited), and all use this highly dubious web site as a source for cast and crew information! Is there something in English language similar to Finnish National Filmography - a printed, peer-reviewed, comprehensive film reference that also has detailed plot summaries? (Cripes, we have to abandon our reputation as an instantly updated encyclopedia covering new happenings instantly - those tomes get published like every 5 years or so and are always 5 years late, or whatever!) We need to take a really great big broom and start nuking everything and everywhere! (the crowd goes "POINT well made!"). And then, after 5-10 years of waiting for the movie journal to complete their tedious work, prepare for the great question that really makes the difference: what benefit would this new version have, exactly, over the version we already have?
  I believe in verifiability just as much as everyone else. It's just that I believe the world isn't black and white (No movie reference work publication delay puns intended) and that verifiability is not necessary unless it is a matter where verifiability is needed. Some common sense, people. And now, my favorite quote from WP:V: "Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources." --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• keep please it meets web condition 3 and is notable Yuckfoo 19:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. How does it meet WP:WEB #3? It's hosted on its own domain and is not distributed by any well known entity... --Rory096 07:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Why are we applying WP:WEB on a software product in the first place? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

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.