Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kings of Chaos

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. Proto::► 13:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kings of Chaos

Kings of Chaos (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

An unsourcable webgame article. Google doesn't turn up any reliable sources. I found some reviews and walkthroughs, but they were of the "submit-a-review" variety or from personal websites/blogs. Couldn't find any sources through a search either. Not verifiable. If reliable sources do turn up somehow, the article will need a massive overhaul since it is basically serving as an in-game history, which is not encylopedic. Wafulz 23:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per lack of reliable sources and established notability. Heimstern Läufer 23:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Eye witnesses aren't sources? The stuff here is all fairly accurate. Removing the article would make our work useless and would remove a useful article from wikipedia. I agree that it could use an overhaul, but deleting it is needless.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.11.137 (talk • contribs)
    • No, "eyewitnesses" (in this case I'm guessing gamers) are not reliable sources. We need reliable sources to avoid original research. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias never allow primary or preliminary research- they only summarize what has already been said by other reputable sources. I'm sure there are plenty of gaming wikis out there who would be glad to have an article on this game. --Wafulz 03:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
      • As far as I know, there are no other wikis on KoC. If KoC gets deleted, I expect many other articles on games to be deleted.The 1337 04:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Has anyone bothered to stop and think that such "reliable sources" can be found on both the game's official forum and respective clan forums? Tytrox 05:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I've been involved in the game and with its administrators since its first age (I'm an operator in its IRC channel, and an admin on the official game forum)... The information is pretty much accurate. And if I were to ask an administrator to verify it would it satisfy this debate? If you wanted to argue that pages on games are pointless; that could be a valid argument, though the counterpoint to that would be that pages on TV Shows are also pointless. Though I'm glad these debates exist... else the truthiness of this article would simply be assumed nonexistant. Snoop0x7b 05:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snoop0x7b (talk • contribs) 05:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
      • No, we need secondary sources, which are defined by being non-trivial third party sources that go through an editorial process- no interviews or forum posts or descriptions from the game's website/fanpages/personal pages/etc. Otherwise it's original research. And by "gaming wiki" I meant a wiki focused on video games, not a wiki based on KoC. I'm relatively sure that they exist. --Wafulz 05:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Perhaps this may be news to you... You probably won't find a secondary source on an online game, as it really isn't interesting enough to be in a professional journal, or a book written about games. If an administrator of the defacto KoC communities (someone that would be in a position to do online puiblication or editation of information on the game), an administrator of the game (a primary source), and the KoC community as a whole agree with the content of this article it's a good chance it's accurate. By precluding a primary source such as an administrator of the game, who exactly would be qualified in this case to talk about it; since obviously no third party is going to do a legitimate publication on it. Snoop0x7b 05:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
        • You could also verify the existance of 4 races in the game, attack turns, etc by visitting the kingsofchaos home page. The argument that something that obvious isn't fact because someone didn't publish it should be considered to be bad; since it is verifiable by visitting the homepage. Snoop0x7b 06:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Of course there is also the point of random players showing up and editting themselves into the history. In which case yes that is bad. Perhaps the page should be restructured and moderated in some way (locked?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snoop0x7b (talk • contribs) 06:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
          • (edit conflict) Actually, lots of third parties publish information on video games. Typically these come in the forms of online or print magazines doing reviews or talking about popular games (RuneScape#Footnotes and Urban Dead#External links are examples). Some shows such as Attack of the Show also feature online games. Articles cannot be based on primary sources. Sorry, but this is fundamental to the encyclopedia, in particular to keeping neutral point of view. I won't budge on this, and neither will any administrators. --Wafulz 06:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
            • I'm willing to admit that in game history is non-encyclopedic and should definately be removed. However I think information such as the races, the turn based nature of it, and information on weapons, etc; should be included. Something such as this: http://www.kingsofchaos.com/help.php# covers it all and should be cited as a source. When writing a research publication a user's manual for an instrument is admissible as a citation; and that is written by the engineers that made said item. Thus I'd make the argument that it is possible to have verifiable sources for things such as that. However the nonverifiable information such as, goings-on in game should be removed. BUT the heavyhanded suggestion of the complete removal of this article is just bad. Snoop0x7b 06:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I see you are targeting KoC specifically. I assume there will be more articles also deleted for the same reasons. As of I don't see that, which may infer something.The 1337 05:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) You haven't been looking. I nominate articles as I come across them and if I believe they can't meet certain policies, such as those stated above. Here are some related examples:
I also tend to use the proposed deletion route most of the time. I have several dozen more examples but I think I've illustrated my point. I would prefer that you assume good faith and not suggest I have some hidden agenda. --Wafulz 06:10, 4 January 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.