Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invasion3042

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. Consensus was that it did not meet WP:WEB. — Ocatecir^T 05:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invasion3042

Invasion3042 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable website, only two Google hits, and one of them is the site's page itself. I nominated this for speedy deletion, but an anon removed the tag without explanation, so I'm forced to come here. Corvus cornix 07:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I would be that Anon. A player of the game the page is about, and I beg your pardon on missing wikipedia etiquette as this is my first time change/editing/altering anything on here. We're trying to have a base wiki to help inform people about the game, and as a resource for fast information about the game as the need arises. There are five tons of information, technical and fluff about the game, all of that we plan to edit in, as for now, we're just getting the ball rolling.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.187.2.188 (talk • contribs).

• Speedy You're not supposed to use wikipedia as a promotional tool Corpx 07:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the aim is mostly aimed at having a page for quick information, when needed. What would be your thoughts on making less add like?

I created this page as one of the players, not one of the people coding or working on the game. I noticed that there are references to many online battltech games and I decided that this one should be referenced as well. The game is non-profit and therefore the page wouldn't be advertising. The page would simply show what the game is, how it is played, and possibly in the future, history of in game happenings or changes such as war etc. This game allows people to play classic battletech with others in an online environment and the wiki may alert classic battletech fans of a way in which they could play their beloved game. -InvaderC1 00:52, 23 June 2007 (PST)

Comment The best thoughts you will find on making it less like an advertisement are at WP:SPAM and WP:NPOV. There's valuable stuff on those pages. Iknowyourider (t c) 08:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this article should not be deleted as there is no profit involved, its just a way for people to know that their favourite hobby has an online counterpart with which they could partake in User WingedPuma 08:58, 23 June 2007 GMT

This is WingedPuma's first edit on Wikipedia Corpx 08:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

just becuase its not on google doesnt mean its not relevant to the battletech communit. Is it your rule that only popular information gets on here? Not much of a wiki if that is the case. - jamesD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.137.253 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 23 Jun 2007 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I dont think being a non-profit makes a difference in this case. The site's even soliciting donations. I also notice that there's a wiki on that site. That should be the place where you can put all the game details/how to play etc. Its currently not notable enough to be on wikipedia though. Corpx 08:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Its not "popular information", but notable information. Corpx 08:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

If thats the case then i can suggest about 5 others that would be in the same category. look at the other links where Invasion3042 is listed - would they not be the same? JamesD (as for solicting donations, i wonder hwo amny other wikipedia listings accept donations or talk of a commercial product? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.137.253 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 23 Jun 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to list articles up for deletion if you feel so. However, I think you may have to be logged in to do that Corpx 08:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, but what about all of the other battletech games with pages. As an example, on the list of battletech games page, there is several online games there as well with wikipedia entries. If we made our page look similar to theirs, could our page stay on wikipedia? This page I use as an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplayer_BattleTech_3025 --InvaderC1 08:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that game has more notability due to the involvement of EA & Microsoft, but that's just my opinion. Corpx 08:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The fact that there exist other articles of questionable notability on Wikipedia does not affect the notability of this one. And by the generally accepted notability standards for Wikipedia (which, by the way, is an encyclopedia, and is not a social networking tool or a place to seek publicity), there is not a shred of notability evidenced by this article. If you have significant coverage in reliable sources, we'll talk. Regards, Iknowyourider (t c) 08:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh so its because they are mega multinationsals is it? didnt they have to start somewhere too? i think this stinks of hypocrasy and an obvious attempt to discourage wiki involvement - JamesD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.137.253 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 23 Jun 2007 (UTC)

"JamesD", please, please, please read those notability guidelines. We practice what we preach here. Before you accuse anyone of hypocrisy, you should make yourself aware of exactly what we preach. Iknowyourider (t c) 08:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, so that game has major corporations as backing. Are you suggesting that only people with money behind their projects are worthy of a wiki page? This is all centered around giving people information about outlets for the classic battletech game. Our page is not meant as an advertisment and we aren't forcing people to play it. What would you suggest our page needs?--InvaderC1 08:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Again its not about the money, but rather about the notability. A major corporation like EA/Microsoft doing something would gain much more notoriety than if I had done the same thing. Corpx 08:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest it needs notability. And even if you had that, it would still need to be written from a neutral point of view. Read. Please. It's good for you. Regards, Iknowyourider (t c) 08:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

so just because EA is big they can have a wiki about their game but because invasion is small they cannot?

(edit conflict) To be perfectly frank, that just about sums it up perfectly. Simply replace the word "big" with "notable" Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 08:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, so we just need someone notable to reference the game then or what? The game is also used by US servicemen to relieve stress. It has it's good sides, and of course we can mention other things. --InvaderC1 08:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You could build a bigger base for the game (without using wikipedia to promote it) and get mentions in gaming magazines/major review sites etc to get notability. Corpx 08:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

so just because EA is big they can have a wiki about their game but because invasion is small they cannot?

Short answer - Yes. If this game gets big and notable, it can have an article. Corpx

Alright, so we just need someone notable to reference the game then or what? The game is also used by US servicemen to relieve stress. It has it's good sides, and of course we can mention other things. --InvaderC1 08:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

If the game is endorsed officially by the US army to relieve stress, then it would be a notable reference. Actions by individual servicemen/women does not constitute notability Corpx 08:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Question, please define "big", how many players would be needed for it to be commonplace? - JamesD—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.137.253 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 23 Jun 2007 (UTC)

"Big" enough to be directly mentioned in gaming mazines/review sites/other media. Corpx 08:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not "big". It's notable. PLEASE read that article. Essentially, you need media coverage. Preferably in multiple sources. Iknowyourider (t c) 08:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Battletech was big and is the basis of the game. Wouldn't the fact that it was a well known board game and is the entire basis of this game be notibility? --InvaderC1 08:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No, Battletech's notability only applies to Battletech Corpx 08:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No. Sorry. That's how it is. Iknowyourider (t c) 08:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

(double edit conflict!) :No, not any more than if I built a board game based on Battletech tonight. Being based on something notable doesn't make a game notable. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 08:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Gaming Magazines don't mention anything thats not major label, or that they're not paid substantially to mention. Also: building and programing a game, and paying for the infrastructure to support it isn't exactly a basement project. - James B—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.187.2.188 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 23 Jun 2007 (UTC)

To put it frankly, that's your problem. Your goal is to publicize your game; Wikipedia's is to build an encyclopedia. The fact that they don't intersect shouldn't surprise you as much as it does. Iknowyourider (t c) 08:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

But could it be used as a reference to perhaps increase the strength of our weak article? And as for review sites, if we had enough people review us would that help for notibility? --InvaderC1 08:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Only if said review sites qualified as reliable sources. Iknowyourider (t c) 08:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you have your mind made up that its not going to fit in wikipedia no matter what I say, sorry to waste your time - JamesD

• Comment. This forum is for a discussion of whether or not an article should be deleted. If you want to discuss our guidelines and policy more extensively, or solicit help in creating an article that meets them, we should take this to your talk page. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 08:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

As for notibility, the game is on www.mpogd.com to be voted for as the top online game of the month. There is a website mentioning the game with a neutral point of view about the game.--InvaderC1 08:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The game will now also have the notibility of having a debate marked on two wikipedia entries.--InvaderC1 08:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

InvaderC1, I've left a comment on your talk page about this. I would like to encourage you to read it, and also please read the page found here. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 08:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

To what Invader says, I'd like to add that the website he linked is a community kept reviews and rating site, and for the subject at hand is a reliable and mostly objective source of information regarding this sort of game. -James B

Alright, I need sleep. My closing point is that I simply wanted to add to wikipedia something that I deemed was missing. The message sent to me indicates that we are able to, and will try again at this endeavor. For now, it looks like the game needs to make a name for itself first, or receive endorsement from a credible source.--InvaderC1 08:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! That is exactly correct. Rock on. Iknowyourider (t c) 08:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

To quote notibility and deletion: "Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." We are not doing that, indeed we are actively preventing that, if we are deleting articles solely due to their obscurity. "Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's pretty hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper" (from Wikipedia:Importance). Further, currently obscure, or seemingly obscure, subjects may garner more popular interest at a later date. In such a case, deleted articles will constitute a loss of valuable (and perhaps, in the transitory world of the internet, irreproducible) information." James B —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.187.2.188 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 23 Jun 2007 (UTC)

Put very simply: So far, no one has demonstrated that the game is in any way an even mildly significant part of the sum of human knowledge. Iknowyourider (t c) 08:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

James, I don't see that quote in WP:NOTE. Could you link to where you see it? The relevant part I've been trying to point out is this: "Within Wikipedia, Notability is an article inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability. The topic of an article should be notable, or 'worthy of notice'. [...] A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 08:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The quote, actually was found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments#Notability_and_deletion

And in response to Iknowyourider: The context of that quote is to illustrate that anything, however insignificant or non-notable at one given time may be at a later date, and conversation and old information about a given topic lost due to deletion could later prove to be interesting, notable, and valuable(In a non-monetary sense). If the game, in ten years, has five hundred thousand players, the game mechanics when the game was first introduced would likey vary greatly, and be of much interest to those five hundred thousand. A second key point is that, simply put, no one uninterested in this has to look at it, ever. Unless they're looking through at the classic battle tech wiki, or searching invasion 3042 specifically, they are likely never to see it. Or perhaps if they are looking for new posts. Also, the article is less than twenty four hours old, and is still being announced to the attached community, to be developed into a more mature an informational page. 67.187.2.188 09:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)James B67.187.2.188 09:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

James, at the top of that page you will find this notice: "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline; it merely reflects some opinions of its authors." Certainly there are editors here at Wikipedia who feel that way, but it is not the policy. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 09:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Another point, which I made on InvaderC1's talk page, is: do not panic! Even if the article is deleted, you can recreate it. The information won't just "disappear". However, because of the nature of the subject matter, you should probably get some consensus from editors here before moving it to the main site: I suggest developing the article at his talk page in the meantime. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 09:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails to meet criteria for web notability. No evidence for notability asserted in the article, nor likely to be forthcoming. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 11:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - the author seems to have requested page deletion on his talk page, so the article now meets a second speedy criteria, in case the first speedy is declined. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 13:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - what we have here is a fairly new editor and an extreme question of notability. Would a userfy be in order if any of the creators want to do the work behind it? (For the newer editors, see WP:USERFY to understand it. It's especially important to note that a userfied article is intended to be worked on, it's not a substitute to "get" your article "in" by having it in userspace.) But it might be a better solution, if there is a good faith desire to build on the article's notability.

So will this article be moved to a private page where all of the users can add onto it while the game gains notibility until we can move it to the mainstream, or will we have to start over anew?--InvaderC1 18:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You can move it yourself, keeping all the text that is currently there. Go to the page, then click the 'move' tab at the top. Rename it as something like User:InvaderC1/Invasion3042 and you will have the page in your own user space, where you and others can edit it as you wish. Post here or on my talk page if you need more advice on how to do this. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 22:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. There is no evidence of notability or coverage in secondary sources. Kevin 00:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on Userifying it. Thanks for clearing this up in a respectful manner. InvaderC1 07:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Well... I know I am new to wikipedia and everything so I know most of you will probably disregard my arguement before I even start typing,but here goes... I was asked to help build the wikipedia page for the Clans of Invasion3042. The Clans are actually a group of just 17 of the 39 factions in this game and actually were the term Invasion3042 comes from... since that is the year that the 4 of the clans (in official Battletech History) invaded the Inner Sphere. the whole purpose for building the Wikipedia page is of course so that people that are interested in Battletech will see this as an online alternative to the boardgame. and actually this game was as an alternative to another online battletech game that had strayed too far from what the community wanted. so the Community stood up and did something about it. Yes.. this game is still in Beta phase. but it has an expansive Roleplaying community and that community makes use of a WEALTH of "secondary sources". We use the battletech sourcebooks and Novels for the official backstory. but when you add roleplayers to that established enviroment and let them loose... the established history differs from the history in the game. There are currently several forums around the internet for the 39 factions in the game.. each faction currently has up to 70 individual players. so you can see that that is alot of history to keep track of. all we ask is to be able to record our little bit of history.. True this might not apply to everyone.. but we have players from over 20 countries that are working and playing together... this is not just a dozen kids and the game they came up with on recess. It will be great to have the history of the game and the universe we had created recorded for those that come later.--Rianna Rose 04:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Please read Wikipedia's guideline at WP:WEB, and try to see if your forum meets the criteria there. Corvus cornix 16:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, I'm not sure how being programmed in C# gives this a heavy case of notability. Actually, I wonder if a heavy case of notability is contagious, because it sure sounds nasty. Anyway, this site fails WP:WEB fairly comprehensively. Sorry guys. Lankiveil 10:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC).
• Delete Agree with above comment about letting them move this information to their own wiki Q ^{T C} 00:47, 30 June 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.