Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominion (online game)

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 as not verifiable as meeting any guidelines through reliable sources. Wickethewok 16:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dominion (online game)

Not notable browser game, seems to fail WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. Peephole 13:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Akradecki 14:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dionyseus 02:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps sir Peephole could explain why this article fails to meet certain quality requirements. Blackreign 04:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — Peephole did explain, in his nom. This game and the associated site fail to assert notability and fail the guidelines set forth in WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE ... therefore a delete is in order. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 11:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral - It's worth noting that the standards used by WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE would lead us to delete 95% of List of multiplayer browser games since very few assert notability outside of the number of players they have (which doesn't qualify). Although, looking through the list, about 95% are listed for deletion. A shame if you ask me, because there are a number of people who have put in a lot of effort creating these fairly detailed entries. -- Matty j 05:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - After reviewing the standards set out in WP:WEB, and taking note of Peephole's obvious vendetta against articles related to this genre of game, I've changed my mind. The only real standard of notability relevant to these games is the number of players (a non-accepted standard according to WP:WEB), and some of these games are very notable in that regard. This game, for instance, has had rounds of tens of thousands of players, as I recall (my brother used to play it). These articles should still fall under the verifiability criteria, but that's a different concern. -- Matty j 17:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete. I agree on Matty j, I understand the rules and know they are needed. However, everybody knows Wikipedia will always be subject to subjectivity and therefor cannot be considered a reliable source. Therefore I see no reason why articles that are usefull to a reasonable community should be deleted onlyk because they can not be verified and or are common knowledge. Jaerock 15:12, 5 August 2006 (CET)
  • Comment Verifiability (WP:V) is an official wikipedia policy... --Peephole 14:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Most of the information is verifiable via the official Dominion website which is listed at the top of the 'links' section. From there, past round-winners can be obtained through two searches of valhalla, first a search of each round, looking for the top dominion, then a search of nickname, which can match the nickname to the dominion. For example the largest dominion in round 30 was Vrijheid. If you search for "Blackreign" then Vrijheid will be shown as his dominion in round 30. Hence round winners can be verified this way. The acronyms/terms & definitions are the dominion communitys short-handed way of spelling many commonly used saying from the "rules" (aka "scribes") which are accessible via the main dominion page. These abbreviations can be seen in use on the messageboards. They are effectively a form of 'dominion language'. Asking for this wikipedia page to be verified by a journal article is ridiculous. Could peephole offer a proper explanation of how this could be resolved instead of just attempting to cause unneeded trouble? Deranged 03:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment All those lists are pure fancruft and don't belong in an encyclopedic article. If you want to improve the article, delete those and find reliable sources reporting on the game so we can verify its notability and decide if its notable enough to be kept on wikipedia. --Peephole 15:08, 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.