Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shartak

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 was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shartak

Online browser game launched last year. No indication of notability or a large number of players. Doesn't seem to adhere to WP:SOFTWARE or WP:WEB. 1680 google hits. Alexa ranking: 1,743,476. Peephole 20:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Given that Shartak, a web-based "browser" game isn't technically software, it shouldn't be expected to meet these guidelines. Also, how is Alexa's demonstrably flawed site ranking valid or relevant? The game has maintained over 1000 "active" players for several months, despite only launching publicly since Jan '06.---Jackel 21:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: If it does not fall under WP:SOFTWARE then it falls under the WP:WEB guideline. Which requires the content of the website to be "subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". --Peephole 17:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Re-read the WP:WEB article and note that the the 3 listed criteria are prefaced as being "some rough guidelines", not all-inclusive and by no means "requirements". Then, peruse the that entry's talk page and note the various threads concerning the current lack of "notability" criteria for web-based entries, and the overall disfavor with which this particular guideline is viewed. ---Jackel 18:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:WEB is generally accepted throughout wikipedia. And yes it is a guideline, if you can state why Shartak should be considered an exception from this guideline please state so. --Peephole 20:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Google hits and Alexa ranking (Or amount of players) Should have no bearing on whether or not an article for it should exist. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should have as much information on all subjects as possible.
  • Comment: No, Wikipedia has an official policy on what it is not, including "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". See WP:NOT. --Peephole 17:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you should rethink your definition of an "indiscriminate collection of information". The article in question does NOT fall under that category. (As a side note, I'd like to mention that you seem to be against keeping both this and another browser based game, Nexus War. It appears that you have a distaste for browser based games, and this would be in conflict with many of wikipedia's policies.)
      • Comment: My reference to WP:NOT was to your claim that "wikipedia should have as much information on all subjects as possible". Also, please refrain from making personal attacks, they do not help your "cause". Especially when they are unfounded (I did not nominate the other article for deletion) and if you're making them anonymously (smells like socks). --Peephole 17:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I was only simply stating that you seem to have dislike these games. Not once did I say that you *did* dislike them, just that it looks that way. It is by no means a personal attack, and I most certainly did NOT say it anonymously. Infact, I'm displaying more personal information than you, as all I see is your profile name and a link to it, and my IP address is displayed under the history. Thats far more than anonymous. I'd also like to note that we are getting off topic. Let's focus on the task at hand, shall we?
• Keep - I don't even like this game and have never actually played it, but I think you're getting a bit over-enthusiastic with the deletion proposals here. By your "criteria" that aren't even policy, by the way, we'd end up with no articles on webgames at all. --Keolah 00:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: I like Shartak I find it relaxing, and as several people have pointed out WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE are guidelines not policy and if you check the Wikipedia:Deletion policy page, you will find no refernces to deleting things for failing WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE. --Meirleach 00:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: None of you have still haven't made any good points as to why a webgame with barely 1000 players is notable enough to be included on wikipedia.--Peephole 00:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Notability is not an acceptable guideline for deletion. It isn't a vanity page, nor obvious patent nonsense, and it isn't spam nor copyright infringement. You haven't given good reason why it should be deleted. Alexa and Google are also not acceptable sole reasons for deletion (In fact, one could argue that Alexa is non-notable in and of itself. :P) --Keolah 01:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: The google and alexa information wasn't included as an argument for deletion but to indicate how trivial the subject is. Lack of notability IS an acceptable reason for deletion. Articles are being deleted constantly for not being notable.--Peephole 01:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:SOFTWARE doesn't apply because the article is primarily about a game, not the code that runs it (hence Category:Browser-based games and Category:Massively multiplayer online games). Besides, WP:SOFTWARE is only about "software applications" (see Application software). Furthermore, WP:WEB pertains to "web-specific content" such as "webcomics, podcasts, blogs, Internet forums, online magazines and other media, web portals and web hosts". While web-specific content is not limited to those categories, it doesn't seem like Shartak, which is first and foremost a game, is the sort of thing that's being discussed. And finally, regarding WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, I think it's essential to read the entire section for an idea of what its heading means. (The section consists mainly of a list of kinds of articles that should not be included in Wikipedia according to consensus.) Interestingly enough, none of the eleven items in that list concern this article, so I'm curious as to how a summary like "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" can be an argument for deletion when its explanation is clearly not. — Elembis 04:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I think we may have a disagreement as to where the burden of proof lies. To my knowledge there are no policies and guidelines that make statements like "articles about games are always okay" (Wikipedia:Notability is just an essay), but there are plenty of policies and guidelines about what isn't okay (like WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:DEL). Doesn't that strongly suggest that any article is acceptable unless it violates a policy or guideline? Doesn't the very act of proposing an article for deletion imply that the person making the proposal has a case to make? — Elembis 04:38, 28 July 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.