Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Galaxy (computer game)

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 Deleted, still not notable. --Cyde Weys 17:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dark Galaxy (computer game)

Video game spam, fails WP:WEB --Wafulz 02:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: I strongly disagree with the deletion of this article. But firstly I am am a frequent Wikipedia reader but have never contributed personally, and hence some of the comments on this page are extremely difficult to understand because of the slang and abbreviation they use. I feel this is somewhat intimidating for anyone that is not within the Wikipedia community to contest a deletion and in particular this one. As I am not an enthusiast, my opinion on the subject of deletion is therefore perhaps not quite as learned as others versed on Wikipedia definitions, however I do not feel that it is any less valid. I am a Dark Galaxy player, and this first came to my attention when Wafulz posted on the Dark Galaxy forums in a rather menacing tone threatening to delete the article if anyone reposted. I took offence at the aggressiveness and the threat of deletion and so I post here to try to prove there is no scheme by anyone associated with Dark Galaxy to advertise using Wikipedia. As far as I can see, there seems to be two accusations here; Advertising and lack of notability. Wafulz kindly links to a thread which purports to be part of an advertising drive, as evidence of a purpose to advertise, however Wikipedia is not mentioned at all in the thread until Wafulz does so. The thread is a little under three months old, however there has been a Dark Galaxy article on Wikipedia for several years. In fact, the DG Wikipedia article was in existence long before the DGWiki game manual, which is referenced by Tychocat as a source of information that has been lifted directly to the Dark Galaxy Wikipedia entry. However in all probability the text in the DGwiki game manual was lifted FROM the Dark Galaxy Wikipedia article. The article was originally posted by a group of DG players from SomethingAwful.com, and was an independent action unknown by the rest of the DG community and creators. There is no motivation or purpose to advertise, however that doesn't change that the article still may be considered as advertising. I believe the article can be changed if it constitutes an advert, and this is the action I would support as opposed to deletion. As for notability, I think that this is something extremely difficult to prove or disprove in the case of a game thousands and thousands of people have come into contact with. The original article was not written by an official from Dark Galaxy, though it was written by a player(s). I understand the questioning of this as DG has no great notability perhaps; however it does have notability nonetheless. I think an editing to lessen the effects of accused advertising is the best course of action. --Tatsyrup 15:27, 2 August 2006
    • Then it was my mistake to assume that you had been behind the article. However, it doesn't matter who is behind it- it still merits deletion for failing to be notable and for basically being an advertisement. Also, please add comments at the bottom of the discussion, not the top. --Wafulz 14:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: It was prodded and deleted just yesterday. --Peephole 02:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

User:TrackerTV/AFD Delete

  • Comment: Per WP:PROD#Conflicts, recreation after prod constitutes a contested prod, NOT a G4 recreation violation. -- nae'blis 03:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentWP:WEB is very narrow in its focus, and as such, it would be extremely difficult for a web-based game to get in however notable it was. -- Librarianofages 02:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • They are also in the middle of an advertising drive, and the vast majority of the links from search engines come from game directories, which the members added themselves in accordance with the thread I linked to. In the thread it also mentions the game is not finished. There are also really no mentions from notable sources anywhere online. --Wafulz 03:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • User:TrackerTV/AFD Info
  • Delete again spam essay. --Xrblsnggt 06:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I look for the multiple non-trivial third-party articles with regards to judging WP:WEB and WP:CORP in context. As such, I don't see how one is more narrow than the other, nor that this game meets either. I'm finding a lot of directory listings, and that seems to be it. Also copyvio concerns, since at least the quotes in boldface type appear to be entirely lifted from here. Tychocat 07:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Ace of Sevens 11:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Ace of Sevens 11:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm pretty sure that WP:WEB is only for web sites, not web-based games. This still needs to assert notability, though. Ace of Sevens 11:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment There is no specific guideline for web-based games, so WP:WEB is the closest you can get to an appropriate guideline. --Peephole 12:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Spam. Need I say more? ><Richard0612 UW 13:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: There is some consensus that no matter the motivation or author, there is some advertisement in the article. I however disagree with the notability. Over the years, the article has been edited heavily and I no longer recognise it from when I last viewed it some months ago even. These edits have created the advertisement. I proposed that the article be changed to satisfy all that there is no longer any advertisement, merely information. I suspect some still have notabilty issues, however is this not a fair compromise? --Tatsyrup 15:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment:Reply Unfortunately, no. It's not just that it's an advertisemen; it doesn't meet notability standards- why should it be on Wikipedia if it's not notable? Online browser-based games are a dime a dozen, and this one has no reliable third party sources to indicate merit. --Wafulz 15:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only the most notable browser games deserve articles. For example, Kings of Chaos deserves an article simply for its success and history, let alone its popularity. Ogame has an article justly, because at last count (over 6 months ago) it had over 2 million active players in Germany, IIRC. Dark Galaxy... while I've heard of it, I don't think its notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article. Dark Shikari talk/contribs 16:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems notable to me. 11kowrom 16:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Can you explain why it seems notable please? Thanks. --Wafulz 16:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete spam Dlyons493 Talk 16:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP The article needs to be written better BUT it should NOT be deleted at all. There are hundreds of computer games listed on Wikipedia, not to mention thousands of cartoons and other items that should be deleted if Dark Galaxy is deleted. It is a free ad-based game that is played by thousands of people around the world. The article needs to be better written but it should NOT BE DELETED. Charley 14:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. The existence of articles that should be deleted does not merit the keeping of another article that should be deleted. Nominate them for AfD if you think they should be deleted (but look at WP:POINT first). --ColourBurst 21:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep The game has been around for quite a long time, so has the article. I had it on my watch list but missed the prod. Much older versions of the article didn't read like an Ad. They could be restored. --Rikurzhen 17:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keepif this is deleted, then articles similar to this content should be deleted as well. Moreover, this game has been in existence for some time now. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Even if we re-write it to be less like an advertisement, it would still not be notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Was this article deleted for the same reason last time as well? I don't see how a game/article (specifically the article) existing for a long time makes it notable. --Wafulz 18:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment to Comment - Pulling the "notible" card is an unwinnable argument for both sides. No matter how notable a topic, or in this case Dark Galaxy is, it is easy to simply dissmiss it with one subjective opionion that "that's not notible enough". This article needs to be rewritten, and wikified. It needs a NPOV, regarding the good and bad of Dark Galaxy, but does not deserve censorship. Delete this, then delete all under List of MMORPGs. Why not be amenable to rewrite? Charley 19:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. Notability is not a "card" - it's a proposed policy on Wikipedia. However, it doesn't matter as I like to think of notability as an extension of verifiability, which the game can't meet (unless you can show me news sources talking about the game). --ColourBurst 21:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • From the thread posted earlier, I got the impression that the game wasn't finished yet. It doesn't seem appropriate for Wikipedia to have an article on a browser-based game that hasn't even been completed- this is borderline crystal-balling. I've also noticed that several of the articles in the list of MMORPGs are also up for deletion, so I don't know if you've considered that. This is not in any way censorship- if the game becomes more popular, wins an award, receives mention from a reputable third party source, or becomes more meritable then it might be eligible for an article. At this moment though? I still say no. --Wafulz 20:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Its software not a website, hence its not about WP:WEB. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Then it falls under WP:SOFTWARE which it doesn't meet either.--Peephole 20:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment if this is deleted, please rename Dark galaxy (astronomy) to dark galaxy, as the DAB page will be superfluous. 132.205.45.148 20:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Revise to fulfil requirements To put a name to this, I am the author and I wrote this article to fill the void of the empty page associated with the 'Dark Galaxy computer game' heading which came up when I originally searched. I didnt realise that there had previously been issues with articles about Dark Galaxy, but the presence of a heading is somewhat misleading, both to those searching, finding no article under that heading, but also for me, as I would have avoided writing this if I had known of the issues surround the topic. If the topic is not worthy of an article, then why have a heading?? I dont mean to whinge, because if the article doesnt meet requirements then fair enough, but arrogant speculation about my intentions regarding advertising is unwelcome, as I am merely a player who enjoys the game, and also interested in contributing in many information repositories online, be it in a forum, a review, or in this case by submitting to wikipedia. The article is not meant to read like an advertisement, and I can assure you I have no ties with any member of the Dark Galaxy team in any way. I can't actually see where it reads like this. It's not like I have said 'this game is the best, come join up and play' or offered any incentive or tried to draw people in. I just tried to outline the game and how it works. I also don't see how it can be an advertisement when there is no commercial gain from a player signing up. It's free and there is no obligation to give anything in return for playing. What am I advertising? OK admittedly there is the possibility to join the premium membership, but that is completely optional and not necessary to access the FULL game. Also, the copyright issue, I was under the impression that an attributed reference, quoted and not attempted to be passed off as my original work was merely a quotation / extract, and not an infrigement. But it is not only the technical details which baffle me... I spent a significant amount of time authoring the article, and as commented, yes it was my first, but why should that be any line of reasoning for deleting my article? I was under the impression that input was an important part of wikipedia, and I didnt realise that fresh input from a new user would be so hostily met. It doesn't encourage new users to contribute, nor does it give me any inclination to try and submit again. As I said, I can accept it if the criteria are not fulfilled or I have overstepped the mark on a regulation. It is my first submission and I could not be expected to take in every last minute regulation plus I am only human, with an individual style. I followed the guidelines on first posts etc offered by Wiki and tried to follow the suggestions, but obviously I fell short. Due to references to regulations I have breached, I cannot offer a 'Do Not Delete' opinion, it is not my turf, nor my rules, but I do feel that rectification of the article to fulfil requirements would be a better course of action. On rereading I agree that the NPOV is an issue, as I have unknowingly written merely from a proDG POV, but that can eaily be changed. There are things about the game that I or any established player who understands the game could give contructive criticism for. The notability is a tough one since as mentioned, the game does tend to appear only in game directories, but surely there are reports which do exist, it is a big game (on reputation I mean) but nevertheless the fact that the game has run for I believe 5 years or more, from its humble beginnings to its latest incarnation with multiple servers running and has long had a well established user base of thousands of players actively involved. Apologies if I am barking completely up the wrong tree here, I am not well versed in the ways of Wiki but I am a little agrieved that a genuine and honest attempt to contribute has been met with such comments, and although I accept intrinsic faults in my style, I don't see a well founded basis for many of the rejections offered. Would someone who is a seasoned submitter mind revising the article to an acceptable state, or merely pointing out where it needs to be revised so I or someone can do it in the hope of achieving a satisfactory balance that everyone can get one with. --Beemat 02:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment The "headline" for the article didn't exist. That is how Wikipedia works- if it cannot find an article under a name you have searched, it allows you to create an article under the heading. However, this is is no way an invitation to create an article for every heading.
And regarding advertising:
Dark Galaxy is a free online, browser accessed, turn-based strategy game using 'Turn-Engine' game creation technology. Right off the bat, the first sentence emphasizes the game's website and the fact that it is free. Then in the conclusion:
This is a basic and although it may not seem so, it is a very brief outline of a highly intricate and feature packed game, and many of the advanced features, strategies and methods have not been mentioned. The best way to learn and eventually master the game is to play. It is a great deal of fun, and a sense of achievement is easy to attain of enough attention is given to the game. Success is relative to the amount of time and effort put in, with the most successful and dominant players logging in multiple times per day throughout the whole round and entering commands even in the early hours of the morning if required. This is not to say that anything less is insufficient. A player can have just as much fun logging in once a day or even less, although this would rule out entering the upper player ranks.
There is significant emphasis to the reader that he/she should play this game. It reads like one long essay describing the merits of the game, why you should play, and how to play it- more importantly, none of these are reasons meriting a Wikipedia article.
The reasoning behind the deletion proposale is not because some of us don't welcome new users or hate this article- it's because we don't find the game to be particularly notable or verifiable, and these are two important aspects of an article. This is all in addition to its article reads like an advertisement. --Wafulz 03:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment to comment The heading was indeed already there. I merely searched 'Dark Galaxy' and the heading 'Dark Galaxy (a science fiction strategy game) turned up at the disambiguation page. I never specified 'sci fi startegy game' thus I came to the conclusion that it was already there. If it had have been just 'there is no article...you can search for it yada yada yada' I wouldn't have written anything simply because there would probably be a reason it didnt exist. As to the idea that it is 'not an invitiation to create and article for every heading' I had no intention of writing under every blank heading, and I dont understand this comment since the way a topic gets covered is by someone submitting an article about it. If everyone thought 'oh its blank, I'd better not write anything' then where would Wikipedia be? This however is neither here nor there... I dont mean to get into a rant. About the article (which after all is what we are here for!) What I do agree now is that fair enough, I can see how that might be construed as advertising, and I see I should have been more objective and less opinionated and of a proPOV, but I still think that it warrants a rewrite more than deletion. I'm not fighting a cause just for the fun of it, because at the end of the day if it's gonna go its gonna go. I assume, like me, alot of people use Wiki to find out about endless number of things, and although its a game, the information is (or after a rewrite would be) more useful and extensive than the short blurb I have ever found elsewhere. Just wondered, if I did find 3rd party reports on the game (notable sources obviously), would linking them here go any way to show notability? Because although it has not been found by a quick Googling, it doesnt mean a) there isnt any, or b) the game isnt notable enough. By nature and genre, it is not going to be all over the headlines, just reported in related places. Regards --Beemat 09:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Then that means somebody forgot to remove it last time it was deleted. Also, yes, reputable third party sources that are unaffiliated with the game would be nice to have. However, the key being that they should be reputable sources- not stuff like game directories, blogs, forums, etc. --Wafulz 14:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment (Delete?) I can't really see what content in this article is worth saving. It's thing most unlike an encyclopedia article I've read today. --Stellmach 13:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but rewrite like crazy I don't buy the argument that is is advertising or spam; it looks like something written in good faith by a fan of the game that ought to be cleaned up, which I am more than willing to help with. syphonbyte (t|c) 00:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As a 6-year veteran of playing Dark Galaxy I am appauled that this game deemed not notable enough. However I am even more apaulled by the un-encyclopedic nature of the article. I will edit it to the best of my ability, then we shall argue about notability. --The Raven 01:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This game is played by millions worldwide, it certaintly is both notable and relevant to an encyclopedia.

--PhoenixPinion 02:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    • I think you're exaggerating a bit there. --Wafulz 04:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepIf there is an article for ogame then there is no reason not to have an article for DG it might not have as many users as o-game worldwide but DG has about as many users as ogame.org. 578 02:45, 7 August 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.