Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gothador

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. Multiple non-trivial reliable sources were not presented for verification and notability guidelines. --Wafulz 00:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gothador

Gothador (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Online RPG, no evidence of notability. Alexa rank of its website has been fluctuating, but since February it's over 100.000. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 07:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. I would like to note that many of the previous posts are from former players of the game. This is a bit biased in my opinion. The article defines what the game is about and will be of interest to those who like to play MMRPG's in the future. The players might want to be more active in updating the article though. I did a google search myself and found many entries that were related to the game including the Wikki article. I would vote to definitely keep this article Midnightmedic 11:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC) — Midnightmedic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • And how exactly can you tell they are former players just from their posts in this AfD? Maybe you could tell us how your search yields 'many' entries as sources, when another editors yielded only 10. Do you have any argument that isn't based in WP:ILIKEIT, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS#It doesn't do any harm, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS#It's useful, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS#It's interesting and attempting to unveil a 'conspiracy' of former players? You've failed to address the notability issue also. Whilst it is by no means the be-all and end-all of notability, this sites Alexa Ranking seems to be especially poor. DarkSaber2k 11:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I stand corrected, I have no proof, but I do recognize at least one of the names. I am not saying that there is a 'conspiracy.' So far there seems to be little to no actual discussion, just delete or speedy delete with little to no reason attached. I'm not sure what 'proof' you are looking for, I did a google search and it returned at least 10 pages of content. Others have failed to show any proof at all or even leave a remark. I am also curious as to why you are so vehement against this entry.Midnightmedic 11:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC) — Midnightmedic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
      • You stand corrected again: A google search reveals 10 hits, only 2 of which are in context, 0 of which are reliable sources. Marasmusine 17:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Failed to show proof or remark on the sources you say? Have you even read any of the comments here? I'm not vehement against the entry, just people who make keep arguments that are absolutely not based on any wikipedia policies bar how not to argue for a keep, and people who can only make arguments based round 'conspiracy theories.' Policies cited as a reason for deletion: WP:WEB, WP:N, WP:RS, WP:ATT. Wikipedia policies cited as a reason for keeping the article: None. Additionally, 'I recognize one of the names' is an extremely weak reason to claim many of the previous posts are from former players of the game. It's a big wide web out there, and many time I've found someone else using 'my' name, and I'm positive I'm not the only one. DarkSaber2k 11:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Thank you for pointing out my faults DarkSaber2k. I will do what I can to research the links you posted and add to that. I would also like to know how you only got 10 hits on a google search. I simply typed in 'Gothador' and returned, as I said, at least 10 pages. Happy surfing todayMidnightmedic 11:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC) — Midnightmedic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep. Is relevent, http://www.tucows.com/preview/363018 , google search returns approximately 10,300 hits, 16 relevant unique hits on the first 2 pages, http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/topnews/wpn-60-200701122007TheYearoftheOnlineGame.htm shows as #7 with average time logged (As of 12JAN07)SeanKelly1986 12:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC) — SeanKelly1986 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
So your saying this must be considered notable because a lot of time is spent on the site? DarkSaber2k 12:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't define reliable sources, wikipedia does. The top link wont work on my PC, the same goes for the second, I'll have to check them later. Urban Dictionary nearly made me wet myself laughing. You genuinely believe that is a reliable source? A web site where anyone can submit any word they've made up and have a 99.9% chance of having it accepted? As for MPOGD, a listing on a database that aims to list every online game in existence is hardly a notable claim to fame. It's like to trying to argue that you should have an article because your names in the phone book. As for Answers.com, I think you'll find if you look closely you will see THEIR article is actually credited to Wikipedia, as is nearly all their information. DarkSaber2k 12:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I would like to see you back up your argument against Urban Dictionary with some sort of source. I don't see anything about the MPOGD site trying to "List every online game in existence" as well. In response to your comment about Answers.com ... that pretty much says the article IS being used and referencedSeanKelly1986 — SeanKelly1986 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

(resetting indent) MPOGD is called the Multiplayer Online Game Directory (or possibly Database, can't remember without checking, but it doesn't affect the point). It lists online games, anyone can submit links to new games, which are then duly listed. I know because I submitted a couple myself. As for providing sources to prove the unreliability of a source, don't be absurd. You have to prove Urban Dictionary is reliable, not me prove it unreliable. And like I said with MPOGD, I've submitted things to Urban Dictionary myself. Anyone can sign up to be an editor and approve or disapprove of the new entries. I could join up, approve my own definition of myself and attempt to add a wikipedia article claiming 'but I'm listed on Urban Dictionary'. DarkSaber2k 13:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[1] I rest my case about Urban Dictionary not being a reliable source. And those other links check out as download descritptions, which are trivial mentions, not media coverage. Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.DarkSaber2k 17:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - why - 1/ Ive read the summary of the game and whilst it is slightly out of date (but as the game is alwyas expanding it could be out of date withing hours of typeing) is quite acurate and factual. It makes no appearance as an advertisement - simply an article on a game -- 2/ There is one point made earlier that QUOTE >>>>>>>>>>>> Delete. Outwar clones are a dime a dozen (Urban Dead, Earth: 2025, Nation States, Starships!, Kingdom of Loathing, etc). No notability per WP:WEB, no article. Zetawoof(ζ) 23:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC) <<<<<<<<< there are many outwar clones. Having read part of the list of MMORPGs and part of the DELETION list I see that apparently other games are not being deleted. That to me indicates this whole session as having been started as a hatewar against the game and more accurately either its creators or a personal issue with another player. It would seem to me that if Gothador were to be dleted - one must delet ALL games that have any simillarities to each oher keeping (after much research) only those with the most orriginality and only within a generic group teh apparently oldest FrankNStien 13:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC) FrankNStien — FrankNStien (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
As a matter of fact, I've tagged over 30 Browser-based MMOs for speedy deletion in the last couple of weeks whilst patrolling lists for accumulated junk articles, all but 2 of which were deleted for actually being non-notable. So once again Midnightmedic FrankNStien, there is no conspiracy outside of your own head. Now do you have an argument for keeping that isn't based on WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:ILIKEIT, or is that all you have like you the other two 'keep' sayers stated earlier? DarkSaber2k 13:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
KINDLY don't lump people who are posting things without any sort of sources, and those who ARE posting relevant sources in the same group.SeanKelly1986 14:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
When you finally post a reliable source, I'll consider changing how I think of you. DarkSaber2k 14:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep

This is a topic that seems to be slowly spiralling into a heated debate, and the best way to battle in this is with logic and facts. I will make it a point to keep my facts succinct and to the point to avoid any undue distress to any of the parties involved with this discussion.
Fact: Hunted Cow Studios[2]created a game that has spanned the globe in a matter of months, and has managed to sustain that game for years. This MMORPG game that we are currently discussing has an amazing 103978 registered users for their forum which is conjoined with their game, Gothador. That can be shown here [3]
Fact: Even with that many registered users, Hunted Cow Studios manages at least one game upgrade per week along with weekly updates and their recently implemented 24 hour live support feature.
Fact: Gothador has over 10,00 listings on Google alone [4] including listings on Big Online Games, [5] Tucows.com, [6] and File Planet. [7] These are sites that are regularly visited by hundreds of thousands of gamers everyday.
Any argument can be made as to why Gothador should or should not remain in Wikipedia, but the final decision is not going to be made due to who can try and defame another person. The only way that a fair and impartial decision can be made is by playing the game. The comradery that the game brings, the amazing ability for a small company from Elgin, Scotland to create a game that spans the globe, can only be experienced and decided upon as an individual. Gothador will not be diminished if we are no longer listed in Wikipedia, though the reverse should be assessed. If over one hundred thousand people play this online game with immense satisfaction and a website arbitrarily decides to delete our game from it's listing, then perhaps the people that enjoy the game could merely forget to surf to Wikipedia. Word of mouth, or in this case, pixel, is more powerful than any advertisement. Gothador will still be there, and we'll have more time to commit to our online hobby. --NytDunne 15:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)NytDunne - Gothador Supporter Nyt — NytDunne (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter how many people have played it for how long, How many link directories it's been listed in or where it ranks on a google search (for websites, people generally hold an Alexa rank in higher regard than a google search). It also doesn't matter how much high regard you have for the developers. For all these 10,000 individual pages that have been mentioned, it should be quite easy to provide Multiple, independent non-trivial third party media mentions that are reliable (Criteria 1 of WP:WEB), yet this is not the case. The article makes no mention of winning an award (Criteria 2) and makes no mention of being distributed through a notable method (Criteria 3). The article has no Secondary sources, required to establish notability. DarkSaber2k 15:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Funny, until you'd mentioned it, I'd never heard of an Alexa rank, and I've been an avid internet user since 1996. Google is far more popular to the average person, topped only by MSN and Yahoo... and even Alexa shows that on it's sites. So for the average person, IE, the majority of people that create website traffic, they are going to get to their sites via MSN, Yahoo or Google. --NytDunne 15:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
No. Alexa measures site traffic, Google is a search engine. There as different as cars and yachts. Of course more people go to google than Alexa. Like you said most people don't even know about Alexa until they are told their 'notable' website doesn't rank very highly on it in an AfD on wikipedia. If you were looking up what time a TV show starts, would you go look up the ratings for the show, or use a TV guide? DarkSaber2k 15:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Using a virtually unknown website that measures the entire internet's traffic is somewhat like trying to use a telescope to count every star in the sky. It's not going to be as accurate as some people would like to believe, as every website is going to be biased. If you were truly trying to be unbiased and go with entirely factual evidence, you'd visit the site and take the two-week trial so that you can have an opinion that is based on actual usage and not numbers. If Wikipedia wants to base it's listings on random ratings and visits, then you should probably start deleting articles, starting at the very first one... --NytDunne 16:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Yet another one Darksabre? Tsk tsk. You have somthing against these game don't you... I will be taking the whole thing to arbitration the minute I figure out how. I don't think the destruction of 40 odd articles in the same category is on. Not without a proper debate on the nature of the category... I also note that most of these were 'speedy deletes', unfortunately you and a few rogue admins seem to think notability is valid for a speedy delete, apparently it is not, i read the policy and it appears speedy deletes should only be for copyright issues. People like you will kill WP DarkSabre. I still note you have about ZERO actual proper edits to WP, you contribute NOTHING outside of 'Doom metal' which is about as notable as my arse, but delete anything that gets in your way using an incorrect method. WPs inherent beurocracy is the only reason you get away with it, because most of us don't have the time to fight all this rubbish. Back to the point, SeanKelly1986's links prove notability. Oh yes they do. Bjrobinson 15:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Got you facts wrong again Bj? Tsk tsk. Check who nominated the article. Guess what? Not me. As for just editing Doom Metal, your very bad at making people look bad you know. Even cursory examination of my contributions shows I'm active in numerous articles from Manhunt 2 to Command & Conquer: Generals, via Metalocalypse. I look forward to arbitration, then we can tell them who suggested I look at all these articles in the first place. But if we can move away from your personal grudge against me and actually discuss THIS article, that'd be great. Of the 5 sources provided, the top 2 I can't check on this PC, they wont load for some reason, I'll have to look over them later. But the last 3 sources would be laughed out of ANY article they were included in.DarkSaber2k 15:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah.... wow! Bjrobinson 15:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
And as for Speedy Delete being only for copyright issues, which page did you read? Because it sure as heck wasn't WP:SPEEDY. Failure to assert notability is not a speedy criteria? Then why o why does practicly EVERY speedy tag say 'Blah blah fails to assert to notability of this topic? For a laugh? Failure to assert notability is practically the ONLY criteria for a speedy deletion, along with advertising, nonsense pages and attack pages. It's so specific I'm amazed anyone could mis-interpret to be solely about copyright violation. DarkSaber2k 15:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Well you have recieved more posts I see and some good articles. There has been nothing but negative and harsh feedback to those replies, not just mine. Wikipedia will of course, do what it wants with this article and that is fine because that is their choice. Other concerns have however been voiced.

I am beginning to understand why more and more college professors will no longer accept Wikipedia in their thesis papers due to the process that is being used to edit the articles. You can delete my account after this for I will not attempt to help anymore. I have tried on other articles and found pretty much the same attitudes. Thank you and have a nice day. Midnightmedic 16:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

  • KEEPDarkSabre, since you yourself claimed that one should join and use the Alexa website before passing judgement on it, shouldn't you, by those standards that you set, do the same with Gothador before passing judgement regarding its validity? This is not a stab at you or the deletion post, merely an attempt to let you have a bit more insight as to why people might be fighting to keep the article on WP. In fact, I would be willing to pay for you to have a trial membership for those two weeks. (Pardon my ignorance regarding how to use this site. I'm trying, but internet impaired)~~Persephone — 67.174.47.115 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


Comment - I just finished the following search on google. Gothador -wikipedia -forum -message -board Each - removes those results, removing wikipedia and all message board (which are top of the unreliable sources list)). The actual results (if you follow it a page at a time): 94 websites are found. None of them are reviews, none of them are mentions in reports or news. The only sources you have been able to provide yourselves are downlink link pages that feature, at most, a paragraph describing the game. Far short of multiple non-trivial independent third-party mentions. I really don't see what more this is to say about this. DarkSaber2k 17:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment I fight tooth and nail for these games. I fought to keep Iselkampf, Tribalwars, and am fighting for Starships! right now. All of which have sourcing ten times better than this article, and two are gone anyway. If there is any kind of merit at all, it get's my vote to keep. This article is just an unsourced advertisement, and a recreation of deleted material. It should have been speedy deleted long ago. Matt Brennen 17:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet Another Comment I just realized that almost everyone voting to keep is a single purpose account! WHY ARE WE WASTING OUR TIME? Matt Brennen 19:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

    • LOL, I was wondering where all these single purpose accounts were coming from! Matt Brennen 20:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Lacking in reliable/secondary sources. Urban Dictionary, FilePlanet, etc... are not reliable/independent sources of information. Wickethewok 21:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
      • As respectfully as I am able: Please read the notability rules. Anybody can put five stars on anything at tucows, and as for the game creator, if you think a minor plug in a local paper makes him noteworthy, then please feel free to create an article about the guy. Please sign your comments. Matt Brennen 21:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Well according to the rules here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WEB - It seems the above articles are proof enough to justify the keeping of the article. There are also fan sites - http://www.guildofwisdom.co.uk and of course http://www.huntedcow.com which also fall into the subsections of the afore mentioned article and also prove notability. - Radneto 23:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC) — Radneto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
      • I think WP:COI would be another thing this guy should (and therefore probably wont) read. Tucows, as a download site, is only a trivial mention on a download page. (Per the same WP:WEB Radneto is claming he read.) The 5 star rating is not an indicator of notability, as you could have requested fans of the game repeatedly vote it 5 star to improve it's standing. On the flip side, someone could just as easily vote it 1 star repeatedly and lower it's rating. A website for the game developer is hardly (here we go again) the multiple non-trivial independent third party media mentions required. And the same goes for the fan site. Hardly independent is it. DarkSaber2k 08:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I find it upsetting to see some of the comments levelled at DarkSaber2k above. Can users like Bjrobinson please review WP:CIVIL? There's nothing personal in this afd nomination, and I would've tagged it myself had I seen it first. Marasmusine 10:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Please feel free to cite DarkSaber2k on the WP:CIVIL as well. Being rude to people who feel that this page is notable is quite counterproductive.SeanKelly1986 10:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC) — SeanKelly1986 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
If pointing out to people why their notability is non-existent in the most thorough way imaginable is rudeness, then yes, I was rude in this AfD. DarkSaber2k 10:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

COMMENT - Yes - Ive posted from a single use account - I dont deny it - Untill this was brought to my attention I didnt even realise there was a registration and "argument" section in Wikipedia. Theres mention above of the game being mentioned ina local newspaper - agreed - it was. it WAS ALSO quite recently (1-2 months ago) discussed in an article in a NATIONAL DUTCH newpaper as it has a large following in Holland

You got a name for the newspaper and a link to article, or have we gotta guess? Oh and, you should have a look at this. DarkSaber2k 13:12, 1 May 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.