Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endless Online

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 keep. I've never seen meatpuppets all clamoring to delete before (not that that's the reason I'm closing this as a keep, mind you; wwwolf makes a good case). howcheng {chat} 20:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Endless Online

Website doesn't meet WP:WEB with an Alexa rank: 188,649 (5 sites that link in) and previous "not-so-clear" deletion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Endless_Online/VazzVersion. No idea how many members. -- feydey 19:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as repost (3rd creation of this article) or Delete as non-notable --Quarl 20:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep (Changing vote, see below). First, I'd like the article deleted because it's a lightning rod for vandals (mr. Godwin would probably rest his case if he saw the vandalism going on here) - and I for one am tired of reverting that shit. Furthermore, it's a small game, long-standing stub, and I guess no one's expanding it reasonably - only vandals seem to be interested of it, and apparently some reasonable users lately. However, I must object to the nomination's points - I really don't think WP:WEB should be used as the notability criteria of online games, especially ones that aren't played in web browsers! The cases where total amount of active players can't be assessed are really annoying too (and the other deletion debate's figure of 300 players is probably way off, as the site seems to claim support for 400 concurrent players [1] - and the vandals say the server is swamped with too many trying to log on all the time =). I've looked at their web site. Looks like an active project that seems to have pretty hefty following (if, as the vandals seem to claim, the server is really used up to its capacity and over - 300 users would be good for any MUD!) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Changed to Strong Keep, on the grounds that the game seems to be popular enough as far as some games go, this is not the case of reposting previously speedily deleted content (The article used to be a stub for a long time and appears to be rewritten lately), and because of the frigging vandal sockpuppetry that seems to spring up in this AfD. And, since the vandals seem to think this game seems to be so popular that it gets vandalised more than G.W. Bush article =) it obviously proves the topic is significant. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • And as a further comment, the article does assert notability: it claims the game has player community of about 10,000, which seems high enough to me to be notable. And it's been around for years, and is maintained actively (as asserted by the trolls, again, who wax poetic when comparing the efficiency of the maintenance to the war machine of WW2 Germany). Not many MUDs got to that many players either! As for verifiability - well, that's a bit iffy now, but one could always fire an e-mail at the developers, nee? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Their forum has about 11 thousand members (although a huge number of them are duals)... Their game itself has something like 100k accounts (check their server's status page). Cemz 08:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
      • One hundred frigging kay users? Status page? Sounds even more notable and verifiable now! Stop the presses! Mr. Wales, tear down this AfD! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
      • And people who still harp on WP:WEB: 11k users, even accounting for dupes, is great deal more than 5k. Definitely notable =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Why it should be deleted I will state the real reason on why this article should be deleted. The game, should NOT be advertised in any way, anywhere. What are the reasons for this?
  It is being advertised as a kids game, but is clearly not, seeing as the racial comments, the continuous flaming and the huge despite from a large ammount of players. It is known that if you don´t have a strong knowledge in the English language through the computer, you will most likely be insulted through that, where it is known that most kids type in ´Netspeak´ otherwise known as a quick way. For example. HAI HW R U PPLZ I HAV 2 GO SONO PLX. You are in deep shit otherwise. Another reason, goes on towards the admins. 3 admins on the admin team are rascist and perverted, one of which is known to have been in prison at least once for drug abuse, currently under the name of Sakura. Most of the players in the game rebelled to the teams creation because of the lack of moderation, and has labelled it as ´Nazi Over-rule´. A G Rated game indeed. If you see a person by the name of Cruise, qawzer (Qwerty, Qwertie), Popdog(Numbers here), Terrysan (Terrytard), Dog55, Izlude, Aramax (By far), Sapphire Fate, Mansur, you have FULL right to insult them, as they are very rascist. Oh, and are idiots. LOZL. I therefore conclude my case on how this page should be deleted. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 80.58.51.106 (talk • contribs)
  • Hint: Anonymous users get rarely counted in the AfDs, and if people look at this IP's contribution history they see that the only edit from there to Endless Online just happened to be vandalism. Also, this is not a discussion on whether or not Endless Online happens to be morally fit to be mentioned anywhere. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has to cover all of the bad and nasty things in the world too, and I assure you there are even worse things than Endless Online that we have covered so far! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete As mentioned above, it's a lightning rod for vandals. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Cemz (talk • contribs)
  • User with 6 edits, all to Endless Online and this AfD. Most, curiously enough, vandalising the article. Not to even mention the few Endless Online article vandalism images I've sent to SD previously. Ahem. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    • So my opinion doesn't matter if I'm not an active Wikipedian? What you view as vandalism I view as truth... your article as it is (and has been in the past) blatantly brown-noses their game and their admins. Cemz 08:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
      • In summary, AfD isn't just a vote, it's a method for gauging Wikipedia community's opinions, and anonymous contributors people with few contributions aren't generally "part of the community". Would you set your house to fire just because every stranger who happens to pass by would tell you to do that, or demolish the house because your friends built you a new one and the people from your street think the old building is an eyesore? =) Plus, "lightning rod for vandals" isn't part of speedy deletion criteria, otherwise two well-known individuals in Washington DC and Vatican would suddenly find themselves without articles =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• CUZ ITS POOP !!!111!!!1 —the preceding unsigned comment is by 24.42.104.94 (talk • contribs)
  • Next time, please don't blank AfD pages. And once again, poopiness of the game is not the issue here. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Don't let your children play this game!!! The "Admins" of this game namely Sakura (who annoys the hell out of me) is a racist ball of fluff do not entrust your children in the hands of these brain-washing fools. She along with Gaffar (her online husband - don't ask) to name a few some of the most idiotic fools you could ever meet in your lives. Along with the players named above.
  Most of the people that play the game are specialists in stupidity and idiocy and most are sex obsessed pre-pubescent kids with an identity crisis – to see proof of this just visit the forums, they’ll tell you everything you need to know. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 172.212.141.203 (talk • contribs)
  • Unsigned, and the IP's only contributions are to this page. And all these people remind me is that the controversy surrounding the game is clearly very notable and should be documented in a neutral way, which, of course, would mean that the article should be kept! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Would their opinions be noted if I had them register accounts? :) Cemz 08:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Of course not. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Wwwwolf, so far it's you talking to meat/sock puppets :) I agree that if there is notable controversy then it should be kept. However, the number of meat/sock puppets' contributions doesn't convince me that the controversy is notable. Many AFDs here have this volume of meat/sock puppets. I think the lack of contribution by non puppets is more telling. Is there some documentation of legal consequences, media attention, etc. regarding this controversy? Because every online game (esp MMORPGs) has interpersonal issues like addiction, role play, sexual deviance, etc. --Quarl 06:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. That was just a random idea I thought of, just to annoy the puppets - for the record, I think none of their rambling makes sense, the problems they list are just typical to all net games. =) However, the article nowadays seems to have some sort of a claim of notability, specifically, some numbers on the size of the userbase - 10,000 players is notable in my book. Verifiability is another issue, especially considering most of the MMORPGs don't have an easy and reliable way to find out the size of the user community AND as said we don't even have notability criteria for that, even in draft form (correct me if I'm wrong). And music has charts - what "charts" do we follow, especially when most existing ones are based on sales figures, which remain kind of weak for free games? So we're deep in the uncharted waters of the notability guidelines, and it'd be silly to delete this just because it's "unverifiable". And as said, WP:WEB isn't really applicable. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:29, 29 December 2005 (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.