Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashen Empires
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Delete, due to lack of reliable sources. No prejudice against recreation once there are sources. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 04:50Z
[edit] Ashen Empires
Webgame without reliable sources. A Google search only brought up one review. Not enough reliable sources for verification, doesn't meet WP:WEB Wafulz 03:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - alexa = 313,814: [1]. You'd expect more. MER-C 04:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Appears to fail WP:WEB. Flakeloaf 06:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- KEEP-still matters —Preceding unsigned comment added by IP204.108.246.2 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Inclusionism Tuvok^Talk|Desk|Contribs 09:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- No vote, the Web criteria are still disputed, and this has a huge presence on blogs of all types, so I cannot decide one way or another. If there was even one major independent source, I'd say keep though. —siroχo 16:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment AfD is not a vote. "Inclusionism" is not a guideline, and the Web criteria are not disputed- it is an accepted guideline. --Wafulz 17:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. a google search for "dransik" turns up more notable websites, such as this one. note also that the game has had many more users than it does now; many of them have left and migrated to lothgar.com. Bob A 19:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand- this looks like a blog and all it says about Ashen Empires is that the game exists and was made. --Wafulz 03:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. I have two co-workers that were talking about this game today. I wanted to know more about it, so I came to Wikipedia and did a search. I was astonished that it's nominated for deletion. There's a lot of buzz surrounding this game and it's growing by leaps and bounds. TenaciousT 19:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- This does not address lack of reliable sources. --Wafulz 20:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- sources for what? the game obviously exists/existed, so if you mean that the content of the article isn't sufficiently sourced, that's not a ground for deletion. Bob A 22:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, yes it is. See verification policy. This isn't a question of whether the game exists or not- this is a question of whether there are reliable secondary sources about it. --Wafulz 04:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- firstly, no it's not. i see nothing in WP:V suggesting that nonverifiability per se is grounds for deletion; if that were true, i could simply remove the unsourced material and we'd be done with it. secondly, what exactly are you saying isn't sufficiently sourced? Bob A 05:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant this link, which states a lack of reliable sources and verification is grounds for deletion. If multiple reliable secondary sources about a topic do not exist, then the article will be original research or inherently non-neutral, or both (both of which are grounds for deletion). --Wafulz 05:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- wp:dp seems to say quite the opposite. it also says that it constitutes abuse of the deletion process to use it to protest specific content of an article which meets the criteria for existence on wikipedia. the relevant example given is that its central information be verifiable, which this one's certainly is. Bob A 08:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant this link, which states a lack of reliable sources and verification is grounds for deletion. If multiple reliable secondary sources about a topic do not exist, then the article will be original research or inherently non-neutral, or both (both of which are grounds for deletion). --Wafulz 05:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- firstly, no it's not. i see nothing in WP:V suggesting that nonverifiability per se is grounds for deletion; if that were true, i could simply remove the unsourced material and we'd be done with it. secondly, what exactly are you saying isn't sufficiently sourced? Bob A 05:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, yes it is. See verification policy. This isn't a question of whether the game exists or not- this is a question of whether there are reliable secondary sources about it. --Wafulz 04:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- sources for what? the game obviously exists/existed, so if you mean that the content of the article isn't sufficiently sourced, that's not a ground for deletion. Bob A 22:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- This does not address lack of reliable sources. --Wafulz 20:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Look for sources yourself and add citations for them to the article!
- Ask other editors for sources using the talk page and various citation request templates.
- If those don't work, come back here. If it is truly unverifiable, it may be deleted.
- Later on, in the abuse section, it says an article should be kept if it is not original research, its central information is verifiable, and it is capable of achieving a neutral point of view with good editorship, which I believe is not the case here, because the material is not verifiable through reliable secondary sources. --Wafulz 16:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- firstly, you didn't follow wp:dp, namely, you didn't look for sources yourself, put anything on the talk page, or add any citation request templates. secondly, why do you say that the central information isn't verifiable? just ashenempires.com itself should be more than enough. Bob A 22:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Enough indents. I did look for sources - I did a Google search and did not find multiple independent reliable sources. I have asserted that multiple independent (separate from the subject) reliable sources do not exist. The only source you have presented is a personal weblog, which does not have an editorial process to make it reliable. The only way to keep this article from being deleted is to cite independent reliable sources. Every single other article must follow these rules. --Wafulz 23:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- independent from what? Bob A 02:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- From the website/subject itself. --Wafulz 02:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- from the subject itself? how is that possible? Bob A 03:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Secondary sources cannot be derived from the subject itself. No press releases or on-site stuff. --Wafulz 04:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- oh? and who said anything about secondary sources? not wp:dp. the information is verifiable. Bob A 06:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Notability criteria for WP:WEB (currently disputed because some want to tighten the allowable sources) and the fact that using almost entirely self-published sources is inherently non-neutral. --Wafulz 08:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- that has absolutely nothing to do with verifiability. Bob A 20:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Seeing as we've been having a circular argument for a week now, let me simplify: An article must meet WP:WEB, must be neutral, which is attainable from having multiple reliable sources from independent sources, and must not contain any original research. Directly from WP:V: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. . --Wafulz 05:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- that has absolutely nothing to do with verifiability. Bob A 20:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Notability criteria for WP:WEB (currently disputed because some want to tighten the allowable sources) and the fact that using almost entirely self-published sources is inherently non-neutral. --Wafulz 08:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- oh? and who said anything about secondary sources? not wp:dp. the information is verifiable. Bob A 06:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Secondary sources cannot be derived from the subject itself. No press releases or on-site stuff. --Wafulz 04:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- from the subject itself? how is that possible? Bob A 03:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- From the website/subject itself. --Wafulz 02:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- independent from what? Bob A 02:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- _weak_ Keep: Ashen Empires was listed as Online Game of the Week at http://www.gameogre.com/onlinegames.htm (this page currently displays this weeks game, scroll down to Past Games of the week, you will find it near the bottom). Additionally there is a review at http://www.omgn.com/reviews.php?Item_ID=52, and a press release at http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/dransik/news.html?sid=6086405. It appears verifiable to me. Or did I miss something crucial, somewhere along the line?-- Balcerzak 00:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- The OMGN review is already in my nomination. Press releases are really borderline since they're basically a reprint of what a reviewer has been told to say from the company itself. The Game of the Week thing is a selection of user-submitted reviews. If I were presented with another source, I would likely withdraw. --Wafulz 00:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry, I had missed that you'd already linked that review. And you're right, I'm hard pressed on finding anything else, so I'm changing my vote to a weak keep.-- Balcerzak 01:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- The OMGN review is already in my nomination. Press releases are really borderline since they're basically a reprint of what a reviewer has been told to say from the company itself. The Game of the Week thing is a selection of user-submitted reviews. If I were presented with another source, I would likely withdraw. --Wafulz 00:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: Technicalities. The game does exist. It's even free to play, so it's not hard for many to find out themselves how real the game is. But, if it helps any... There used to be a review of this game back in '03 on a site called player2player.net. The site is still technically around but hardly maintained. Archives aren't available past july '04. I don't know if it can be called a legitimate source today, but it used to be an active site with news and reviews like any other gaming site back in '02-'03. If the admin can be contacted, maybe she'll put up the older archives. 71.113.30.183 04:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Nobody is arguing the game's existence. player2player.net appears to be a user-submitted material website. --Wafulz 04:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: [2], [3], [4], [5]. I would look for more, but I'm in a bit of a hurry here. VDZ 16:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Again, the only one of those links which is an actual article about the subject is the one I provided in the nom. The "feature" from MMOsite is copied directly from Ashen Empire's website. I'm starting to believe nobody is actually reading what I'm saying. --Wafulz 16:32, 9 February 2007 (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.
