Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MapleStory

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 speedy keep. AfD is not the Wikipedia Cleanup Dept. Kimchi.sg 02:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MapleStory

MapleStory (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable free MMORPG. The entire article seems to be original research; there are no reliable sources (every source is either a personal blog or from the creators of the game). No notability is established by any of the sources. In addition, the article is poorly written, overly long (50 kb), filled with unencyclopedic content (lists of game content, etc), and appears to be full of fancruft. All in all, a pretty bad article that I think needs to go. Moogy (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nom. Moogy (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, but only with the expectation that excessive fancruft and poorly sourced material should be removed with prejudice. Charlie 21:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I tend to be wary of freeware. Most of the article is, as Moogy said, original research. None of the sources are reliable as far as I can tell, and none of them explain why the game might be notable. For the fancruft I would normally recommend cleanup, but it makes up almost the entire article. In short, unreliably unverifiably sourced original research fan garbage. Voretus/talk 21:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Are you joking me? This is one of the MOST notable MMORPGs. --- RockMFR 21:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • This is not a good keep reason. Please give something based in policy. Voretus/talk 21:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The game has over 50 million users [1] . I could Google all day and find tons of reliable sources. --- RockMFR 21:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Please do so then. That's what the article needs. Voretus/talk 21:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Then add them to the article and maybe it will no longer be worthy of a deletion. Having sources doesn't mean anything if they're not used. Moogy (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
      • This nom will end in a trainwreck of GNAA proportions. --- RockMFR 21:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. --- RockMFR 21:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No verifiable third-party sources to reference its notability. Fails WP:WEB. Tevildo 21:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • A reference of its notability (from IGN) has been added. --- RockMFR 21:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep: The nominator is trying to claim the article's condition is a reason to delete it. Notability? The game has 50 million users (referenced twice in the article, find it yourself), has almost 2 million Google hits, and is supported by MTV [2]. There are nine reliable sources here, and there are obviously many more. Because of this, it is unable to fail WP:V and WP:NOR, policies of Wikipedia. It doesn't fail WP:NOTABILITY (quite clearly) and WP:WEB which hardly applies at all. The deletion of articles based on WP:NOR (and other rules) is not judged from the sources on the article, rather, the sources available - I've clearly supplied these. The ease and accessibility of these sources leads me to think this was a bad-faith nom.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEmulatorGuy (talk • contribs)
  • Comment The WP:V states: "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." This seems relevant to the discussion. Charlie 22:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep It's verified in multiple reliable sources, which are already included in the article (e.g. the IGN link), that the game has 50 million users. That is absolutely, unquestionably notable. -- Kicking222 22:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete until sources found... oh wait, there are already sources. Strong keep. -Amarkov blahedits 23:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keepI think just because that this article has grown this big, it shows the popularity of this MMORPG. If you deleted all articles that fit this criteria, there won't be any video game articles anymore. ALso, please don't be biased just because you hate ALL freeware. If you rid yourself of all freeware, then you wouldn't have Internet Explorer, Firefox, or any other web browser to even view this page. Davud363000 23:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: As per above notability. The article should be cleaned up majorly, but it is nonetheless notable. --Scottie theNerd 01:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, This has got to be a joke. This MMORPG is more notable than some of the worthless ones listed that aren't nominated. ~HJ [talk]@½HurricaneJeanne 02:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • strong keep Clearly notable and verifiable. — brighterorange (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep

One of the things that distinguishes Wikipedia from other encyclopedias (like Britannica) is that Wikipedia has articles on nearly everything, not just things editors find important. Therefore, we shouldn't delete it just because it is a "Non-notable free MMORPG."

The second argument is that the article is mostly first-hand opinion. This is easy to fix: There have been plenty of online reviews of MapleStory which can validate or refute those authors' claims.

The final argument for deletion is that the article doesn't cite sources. Instead of outright deleting articles written by careless authors, we could easily find sources and add them to the article (similar to problem two). This would help further show the world the value of a free, user-edited encyclopedia.SteveSims 03:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep per Amarkov. Danny Lilithborne 03:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I find it very sad that it took an AfD for the article to get its first decent reliable source. Nifboy 07:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
    • This is generally because no experienced editors (OK, wrong word, but "editors who use references for their edits" is too long) have wanted to edit the article. It's extremely easy to find sources - Google News has 9 sources, then you have sites like GameSpot and IGN. I'm not surprised this article was nominated (it's not in the BEST condition, albeit a lot better than other), but the nominator could've done a small search on Google and would've realized the possibilities are endless. Yay I'm babbling. --TheEmulatorGuy 08:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Most of the articles on Wikipedia are not cited at all. Lack of citations is not a reason to bring an article to Afd. Editors should first actually try to find sources rather than nom every article they see that has not been sourced yet. It is a waste of everyone's time when notable subjects are brought to Afd because editors are lazy and/or want to prove a point. If subjects such as Flag of Jamaica, Education in Australia, or Cross country running were brought here (all articles with no sources, although with some external links), the same discussion would occur. Sadly, some editors might even see such noms as being in good faith. --- RockMFR 16:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep very notable game. VegaDark 09:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's obviously notable, verifiable, etc. But the article itself needs some serious work - as an example, the supposed "Criticisms" section is almost unintelligible to someone (like me) who hasn't played the game, which gives me the impression that the article is not written in an encyclopedic fashion (in an proper encyclopedia article, a "criticism" section would address third-party criticism, not just petty complaints by fans. Maybe the majority of the article should be moved to a gaming wiki where people would actually care. I must say that I'm surprised that Moogy tried to AfD this, though - I'm sure he could have realized how much resistance there would be. — flamingspinach | (talk) 12:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Some Fifty Million people play this game internationally, it has it's own food, it's own clothing, and it's own gift cards among many other things, though in other countries, and generates hundreds of millions in revenue. There's no fathomable way that this game is not notable, none. Sources are needed however, desperately, unfortunately the game is almost entirely ignored in North America and thus sources(Korean, Japanese, Chinese) are not in English.Revrant 13:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong and Speedy Keep this game is very well known. It is definitely notable (has been featured on sites like IGN). ← ANAS Talk? 13:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong and Speedy Keep bordering on WP:SNOW. While the article could use more citations, that's nothing to delete the entire thing over. Just plop the tag on the top. Trimming wouldn't hurt either. Yeah, the article needs a LOT of work, but there are better ways to get your point across then putting it up for deletion. -Ryanbomber 17:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but need a major rewrite IMO. anyway come vote on another afd on MapleStory Game issues KaiFei 18:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong and speedy keep. Bad article, worse game, but its definitely notable due to its massive userbase and press coverage. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 19:37, 22 December 2006 (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.