Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GoKrida (2)

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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GoKrida

No indicated notability, no reliable sources, no indication of a large number of players. Seems to fail WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. Conclusion of the previous afd was keep because of the game 's unique gameplay, yet I didn't find any reliable source confirming this. Peephole 19:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The way the game is set up, you kind of have to create an account to find out yourself what it is about. It is frustrating that there is a lack of independent sources with information on the game; this is one reason I've been working on this article. Some of the information in the article is the kind of thing I would have liked to have known before signing up, to help me decide whether it was worth my while. Maybe you should try playing the game, and see for yourself if it is notable. Meanwhile, here's some food for thought. Maybe you could even discuss the game with Mr. Berg; perhaps he knows of some independent sources. B7T 23:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

As for the notability issue, I would think that the fact that the National Heritage Foundation is backing GoKrida would make it notable. B7T 00:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: I'd like to point out that the National Heritage Foundation has about 9,000 foundations under its umbrella and blogs aren't generally accepted as sources (WP:RS). It's something but not nearly enough to include it in wikipedia in my opinion. --Peephole 16:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I wasn't suggesting you consider the blog a source. Just that you rather thoroughly read the GNHF site and the links in the blog for some insight, as it's probably the most useful information you're likely to get outside of participating in GoKrida. And I think it's intriguing that what is essentially a browser-based fantasy sim was considered worthy of funding by the NHF; that must have been some interesting sales pitch. B7T 19:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: There is a link there now to the National Heritage Foundation's donation page for GoKrida. I'm not sure if that counts as a reliable outside source as to notability, however I do question the basic idea of Wikipedia being only for things that are notable enough to have garnered mainstream attention. What differentiates Wikipedia from Brittanica is precisely that it is an encyclopedia of many things that are not "notable" to the mainstream press, but nonetheless may hold some interest for a niche audience. As an early example of a web browser game being recognized as an official educational or national heritage resource, that may confer upon it some degree of notability. 68.146.221.26 21:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I'll admit I'm not as familiar with the various policies regarding Wikipedia-worthy articles as I probably should be; but I'm more a spirit of the law person, and I think this article is worth developing further. B7T 01:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Needs better sourcing, but from what I can tell, it has a significant number of players. Ace of Sevens 17:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: How many? --Peephole 18:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
      • How should I know? That's why it needs sources. If it has developed a player culture, that suggests some significant number, though. Ace of Sevens 18:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment:So you're just guessing it has a significant number of players?
          • Not exactly. I'm relying on indirect evidnece. If I said cars were commonplace in Elbonian society, that would be a strong indication that they are an industrialized society. It's quite impossible to tell how industrialized based on that. Basically, the information in the article couldn't be true without a few thousand players. I can't be more specific. Ace of Sevens 16:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
From the stats pagethis, it look like Gokrida roughly gets anywhere from 10,000-40,000 hits per 2-week period. --HResearcher 09:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete: Its relationship with the NHF gives it a shade of notability. However, searching google results 232 unique hits half of those seem to be blogs and the other half seems to be ads related to GoKrida. --Mitaphane talk 07:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Maybe I should had done a little more research before relying on NHF for a notable source. In the previous AfD discuss user Jonel brought a good point about GoKrida's ties to the NHF. I looked it up on their website and this is all you can find. I decided to see what the NHF was about. I found this:

One of our main objectives is to popularize the use of Foundations. We want to make foundations accessible to everyone, regardless of income level. A Foundation at NHF is inexpensive to start (only $385 application fee) and inexpensive to operate. NHF does all the “administrivia” for you, including receiving all donations, writing checks and making disbursements from your foundation, sending charitable receipts for donations to your foundation, all accounting, state and federal compliance and reporting.

So in other words these people sell non-profit tax-exempt foundations for $385. These sources from The Joplin Globe & LA Times seem to agree. Based on this informaion, I'm saying delete based on wikipedia notability criteria. --Mitaphane talk 07:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep It seems this site is somewhat notable, but how notable? I don't know. --HResearcher 09:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: There has been some debate about notability, verifiability, etc. as they apply to browser-based games; they may be a unique case where the criteria should be different. (See here and here for a couple of discussions where this is brought up.) Also, notability is not formal policy. B7T 13:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: (Sorry, a bit of a rant follows.) This AfD has been relisted twice now, and it seems very few people are willing to discuss it. The previous AfD concluded the article was a keeper, and those who have participated in this one generally seem to think this article might be worth including; can't we leave it alone for now? Is it necessary to actually have a consensus? Nexus War was recently retained with no consensus, although granted that was a more spirited discussion. I would like to see some actual discussion here, but it seems that isn't going to happen. B7T 01:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Because of the uniqueness of the game, I think it may be worth keeping, it's very different from other games in its particular category (if there is actually one). --Ariadoss 19:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Uniqueness is POV, not an argument for inclusion. --Peephole 21:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comments: Arguably there is a uniqueness to this game that can be seen objectively. Unfortunately, it's hard to demonstrate this without becoming a participant in GoKrida. And yes, one could also argue that participants have a vested interest in the game and would necessarily think of its uniqueness as a positive thing; but there are many who try it out and give up because it is so unique, and they can't quite "get" it; this could explain a regular player base that still seems small, even though GoKrida has actually been around for several years. And one would think that several years' worth of existence should have given GoKrida some sort of notability by now, yet I still can't find anything to cite from noteworthy independent sources, although I am continuing a search for such things to improve the article. B7T 22:30, 14 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.