Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hattrick (2nd nomination)

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. Although the comments calling for a speedy keep are out of place--the nomination was clearly made in good faith--the arguments raised in favor of keeping the article are persuasive. WP:WEB is a guideline for the application of WP:N, which defines notability as having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". From looking through the discussion below as well as the external links provided, it seems that there is a consensus to keep based on sufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources (see, for example, [1] and [2]). While it is clear to me that the article could use some cleanup in order to more clearly present its claims to notability, this should be handled through normal editing means. --jonny-mt 04:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hattrick

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Hattrick Articles for deletion/Hattrick (2nd nomination)
Hattrick (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This article has no sources independent of the site itself that prove its notability. It has no assertion of its notability from independent sources. Smartyllama (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC) Smartyllama (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 13:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - how times change; previously speedily kept on the grounds of "lots of people play it." If that was something special, then someone, somewhere in the gaming media, would have given it some critical attention. Examining the references, some links no longer work, some are unreliable (an open wiki), none are independent (thus failing WP:N guidelines.) I'm prepared to change my opinion if someone can link to third-party coverage. Marasmusine (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Not having independent sources isn't grounds for an AfD, its grounds for adding a template seeking some. This passed its previous AfD not because "lots of people play it", but because "due to an Alexa rank just outside the top thousand, 800,000 registered users, millions of Google hits, thousands of inbound links, multiple related forums and fansites and several dozen third-party add-ins" it easily passed WP:WEB. Nothing's changed since, except another 150,000 users. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 15:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • It fails, rather.
  1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. (Failed)
    • This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following: (No reliable published works found)
      • Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site. (Probably the article itself)
      • 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.
  2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. (No award was ever given)
  3. The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster; except for:
    • Trivial distribution such as hosting content on entertainment-like sites (GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.) (None so far)

Also:

Could you explain what that means? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 15:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete per WP:ADVERT Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 06:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Response. You're not reading the content, either of the article or this debate.

1. It's been used and cited in several acadmic studies. One of these is now referenced. 2. I've found several non-trivial references by Googling +"Hattrick" +"ExtraLives". As mentioned elsewhere on this page, their non-inclusion thus far is not grounds for deletion. 3. Wrong. Read the page. You "doubt the Philippine membership on this site"? Eh? How is that in any way relevant to an AfD. If you bother to check (takes two minutes), you'll find that 275 of the 965,000 active players are Filipino. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 09:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

But how were they able to get those figures? Is the source itself reliable? Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Again (assuming you're asking about the number of Filipino users), this is totally irrelevant to an AfD. But as it happens, yes, the number will be accurate. Each application for an account must be reviewed by a GM before the account is activated. Each application is tied to the country in which the applicant resides, by IP address. But then, this all explained in the article. The article which now has multiple reliable sources and references including academic studies. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 10:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Response to Bastun The "it has x google hits, so its a keep" violates WP:BIG. Smartyllama (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough - that still leaves an Alexa rank just outside the top thousand, 966,000 registered users, thousands of inbound links, multiple related forums and fansites and several dozen third-party add-ins - which satisfy WP:WEB. I've since added some more to the article, including awards, Hattrick's involvement in charity, and its use in academia. (Still wondering what "and I doubt the Philippine membership on this community" is about...) BastunBaStun not BaTsun 20:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Are some Filipinos members of that site? Also, what are those lots of links for? Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 06:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Not that its in any way relevant to an AfD, but yes. What are what links? If you mean the references I added, click them and find out. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 09:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep There are many sources available for this. If the nominator wants some in the article then he should fix it himself. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • A quick glance at the "many sources" reveals that few of them are about the site, and most are about guys in soccer getting hat tricks. Smartyllama (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
      • And so we use the sources that refer to this game site rather than the ones which are unrelated. I skimmed through them and counted at least four references to reliable sources to satisfy myself on this point. We only require two to establish notability and so your point is otiose. Colonel Warden (talk) 03:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
        • It doesn't just need two sources mentioning it, it needs two sources asserting its notability. If this were not the case, we'd have several million people with articles who had two mentions in local newspapers. :-) Could you please explain how said sources assert notability. Smartyllama (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep The game is played by almost a million people. This alone should merit it an article. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 06:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
But it's another WP:BIG violation! Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 08:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Correction The number of players is irrelevant to a game's notability. See WP:N. Randomran (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
      • No, WP:N states that this guideline is to be interpreted using commonsense. It is obvious commonsense that a game with about a million players is worthy of notice. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Common sense should dictate the use of policies. And to me common sense would dictate that million users alone should be notable. There are many countries with less population than Hattrick has active users. Are there any precedents that a MMOG with active users counted in several hundreds of thousands is non-notable? --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 11:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete As per nominator. If someone can show reliable third party sources talking about this game, then I'll gladly withdraw. Otherwise, this patent violation of WP:N. Randomran (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Net Success Interviews (E Loughnane) (Lulu.com, 2005) 624 pages, ISBN 1411626982
http://www.fcha.dk/viewpage.php?page_id=1
http://www.fchattrick.dk/viewpage.php?page_id=2
Multiplayer Online Games Directory - Game of the Month: Available: http://www.mpogd.com/gotm/?Date=10/1/2002
New Business in Computer-mediated Communities. (Helsinki, 2004) (Patrik Ajalin, Tomas Granö, and Kaj Nyberg) Available: http://www.cs.hut.fi/~rsarvas/Sarvas_etal_NewBusiness.pdf Accessed: 11th May 2008.
Title: Time Extraction from Real-time Generated Football Reports (Borg, Markus) Description: Proceedings of the 16th Nordic Conference of Computational Linguistics NODALIDA-2007. Editors: Joakim Nivre, Heiki-Jaan Kaalep, Kadri Muischnek and Mare Koit. University of Tartu, Tartu, 2007. ISBN 978-9985-4-0513-0 (online) ISBN 978-9985-4-0514-7 (CD-ROM) pp. 37-43. Available: http://hdl.handle.net/10062/2516 Accessed: 13th May 2008.
http://www.homelessworldcup.org/ and http://www.justgiving.com/hattrick
Should be enough to start with... BastunBaStun not BaTsun 00:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The key is reliable sources. Are those sources really reliable? They look like community websites to me. We need references from journalists at reputable game sites or news sites. Randomran (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
They do? One is a fairly weighty 624 page book - not a website. Two are (real world) football teams. One is an online games site (which, in fairness, is where you're most likely to find news on awards for online games!). Two are academic papers published by universities. Two are international charities. No community websites there, with the possible exception of the online games site. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 00:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable game, independently of how many people play it. No reviews or articles on any major videogame site (like gamespot). Actually, no articles on any videogame review site. Only reviews I could find are hosted at self-publishing sites [3]1 link removed for spam filter. This indicates a game that has almost zero encyclopaedic value, compare its notability with games like Habbo Hotel and Eve Online that really made a difference and get reviewed on many places. Even Trickster Online gets some coverage in english language [4], but this game doesn't. That's not good. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This "article" is in the "Blogs" section. It still asserts *some* notability Nah, looking better, it seems that the section is just a collection of blogs made by people working there, this is not actual coverage of the game [5] --Enric Naval (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:GOOGLEHITS gives a huge amount of false positives with "Hat Trick" and people with surname Hattrick so it's not a reliable statistic. No reliable source for active users, as opossed to simply counting registered accounts, including the ones never used. Alexa is irrelevant and can be gamed by asking users to install Alexa toolbar on their computer. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Well. The number of active users (at least according to Hattrick) is the number of users that have logged in within the last seven weeks. As for the number of accounts that have ever been registered, sniffing through the id numbers it seems that there are at least 7.7 million users who have been registered users. As for WP:GOOGLEHITS searching for "hattrick.org" gives over 3 million hits, and I guess not many of them are false positives. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 10:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply Or, indeed, search for +"Hattrick" +"ExtraLives". Its really not difficult to remove false positives. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 10:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - the basis for this AfD is plain wrong. There exists multiple independent coverage for this: A book and multiple academic papers - what more could we ask? -- Mark Chovain 06:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Cautious keep The sources need very careful evaluation (the first I checked was on lulu.com, which is a self-publishing site). I suggest it is given a period of intense evaluation and rework, and once the sources have been checked and the text beaten into shape a bit, we look again. Guy (Help!) 08:08, 14 May 2008 (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.