Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inselkampf (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 delete. Arguments about numbers aside, we can't have articles without reliable third party sources. This is based on policy: no original research, verifiability, and attribution. --Wafulz 12:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inselkampf (2nd nomination)

Inselkampf (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete - No assertion of notability, only sources provided are primary or fan sites, Fails WP:WEB. DarkSaber2k 14:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Very easy to tag AFD without considering an articles contribution. Also if this is not considered notable than about 80% of the other entries in the category browser based games should also be deleted, and that would be silly, becuase there is a place for a NPV source on such matters. There seems very little reason to delete a pretty well written and interesting article. The points made for the first afd debate are still valid, and player numbers have risen substantially since then [[1]]. Well whatever. Bjrobinson 13:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

A) WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. B) WP:FISHING C) WP:BIGNUMBER D) Feel free to name some of the 80% of the other entries you feel are less notable, and I'll be happy to look at them and, if need be, nominate them for deletion. DarkSaber2k 13:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Look, I can't compete with your sort, the fact you responded to that in 2 minutes and looking at your contributions spend most of your time deleting things on WP is fine. Find them yourself :) Bjrobinson 14:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep -> Its a very well-written, objective, account of the game. Third-Party sources are not availible for games like inselkampf. This is because no-one writes books and rarely Magazine entires that couldnt be described as Fan-based. You might say that thats a reason for deleting it, but its not making any unfounded claims. If you could please pick out a particular piece that needs changing or verifying then i will do that. It would be incredibly rash and ill-judged to delete such a promising article. The speed of these replies should also indicate just how widely read this article is.EdPethick 16:27, 20 April 2007 — EdPethick (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Thrid-party sources are available for games like Planetarion, another online Browser-based game, and the 2 or 3 actually notable BBGs with articles here also have some independant sources. Hollywood Stock Exchange has had articles in the New York Times for example. The piece of the article that needs rewriting is in fact the entire article since absoutely none of it makes any assertions that the site passes any of the criteria suggested by WP:WEB.DarkSaber2k 15:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per both of the misguided keeps above. If a subject has no third party sources, which even its proponents do not dispute, then we cannot have an article on it. —Cryptic 17:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This article is like an instruction book for the game. Once the strategy guide is removed, there are only about three sentences of information about Inselkampf outside the world of the game. -Haikon
  • Delete - Pretty clear: no third-party sources means no notability. It can be as popular as it wants to be, but with no source of verification, there isn't much we can do for the article to keep it. --Scottie_theNerd 03:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - I find myself concerned with a trend I see to delete articles in the MMORPG category. Some of these games have been around for years and have VERY large followings. I understand the reasonings behind the nominations, as MMORPGs are notoriously difficult to cite and source, there simply are not a lot of well-known sources in the MMORPG community, especially when it comes to browser-based games. The sourcing consists mostly of user-review sites and word of mouth. I think we should cut some of these games a little slack. If we don't, we will end up not having articles on some of the major games out there, and that would be a shame. Inselkampf is a VERY notable game, almost everyone who plays these things has played it, or at least heard of it. The notability guidelines are just that: GUIDLINES, and should not be treated like strict rules. The word "guidline" implies adjustment, and we should be adjusting slightly to keep some of these articles. This article is well written and covers a notable game. It should be kept. Matt Brennen 23:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Lacks reliable sources and I can't find any through my Googling. You can't write an article with only primary sources. Wickethewok 06:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - I think you should Google some more then. This game is notable in my mind. It is played accross many servers with very active Clan/Alliance forums. Player accounts and resources get traded and sold on the various country eBay sites. There are ICQ groups, stores, and even other Wikipedia artciles in other languages. The question we need to ask is 'Does this game exist, and is it played beyond a couple of hundred players?' The answer is Yes. It should be in Wikipedia. I also think the level of debate here would help suggest a level of notability too. Nycmstar (talk • contribs) 18:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete bottom line: no reliable sources, no article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC
  • Comment There is a wider issue with these games, this whole category has been ripped to shreds in recent days, with about 40 odd being deleted, mainly because one guy just went through and added 'Speedy Delete' tags to them. I don't even play any of these games, but I am concerned about the implications of this category being destroyed. I think we need to protect minority interests here, external sources on such games are going to be hard to find, but then there are a billion 'who cares' bands on WP who don't seem to get deleted. I'm being serious now, when your deleting games like Ferion, Inselkampf and Cybernations with 10's of thousands of players, people are taking some policies too far. (Didn't sign when posted User:bjrobinson.
I totally agree except that we are not talking about policy we are talking about a guideline. I think we should all keep that in mind. The reason it's a guidline is to leave room for us to use our better judgment. I don't thing destroying an entire category is an example of good judgement. Each one of those speedy deletes should be up for review, IMHO. Matt Brennen 00:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
To quote Cryptic from earlier in this AfD: If a subject has no third party sources, which even its proponents do not dispute, then we cannot have an article on it. If no sources exist you can't just say 'Oh let it on anyway, 10,000 people play it.' DarkSaber2k 15:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
except that there are sources. Most of these games are on a lot of review sites. Why? Because that's how it's done in the business. There are no printed MMORPG magazines (that I'm aware of) and so review sites are pretty much it. Notability guidlines should take into account the fact that a MMORPG is about as notable as it is possible to get in it's field, and games like Inselkampf and Ferion are as notable or more notable than any other games of their kind. Matt Brennen 00:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Matt Brennen. I'm not expecting to read about this game anytime soon on the front or inner pages of The New York Times. That doens't mean its not notable. There is a whole facet of life that does not take place in the pages of a journal or magazine. --Nycmstar 00:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Nycmstar
  • Keep game seems notable enough, but article needs work. Russeasby 15:53, 23 April 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.