Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pardus (game)

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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pardus (game)

No indicated notability, seems to fail WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE (as per User:Peephole). -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 09:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Not sure if it meets this criteria "The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation." but the game won the 2005 award at [Game Ogre]. [The link]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheSeer (talk • contribs) 09:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Web-based game with an Alexa rank of 87,995. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Don't use Alexa to justify deletion. From WP:SET: "Alexa rankings are not a part of the notability guidelines for web sites" -- grummerx 13:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep:In addition to the aforementioned reward, it has recived much aclaim:
  • Article in the Telekommunikations & IT Report (German)
  • Article in Der Standard (German)
  • As reported on the Pardus News Archive, Pardus has been mentioned in "the progress," Austria's largest student newspaper.
  • Pardus was mentioned in the popular FHM Friday Newsletter on Jan.28th [2005]: “This is a must see game,” wrote Portuguese Marco. “It is a massive multiplayer something like Star Wars, take a look and you won't regret it... “We had a glimpse. Let us know if it’s the dog’s testicles.

Thus, this is a keeper. (Note: Although this is the first edit on this account, I have made dozens of edits anonymously, never having had a reason to join.) AurakDraconian 18:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: That's only one real reliable source (the IT article) and the award isn't notable either. --Peephole 19:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. GrimGent 19:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Seems to meet our requirements, though it could use some trimming. -- nae'blis 19:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Please Keep. This is a great, professionally programmed game with a growing user base. Why should the article be deleted? Just because the game is small? There are towns in Wyoming with Wikipedia pages, towns with fewer users than this game. . .--Heruka2006 22:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: The arguments put forth here (and, incidentally, why are the claims here and not in the article?) are unmoving. Small towns have histories, and what is now a dot on the map was once a major battlefield or rail line. Games, on the other hand, have recent histories and ongoing development. When the game reaches ubiquity and is driving comment in other (off-line) sources, it will be time to explain it to the world in an encyclopedia. Until then, it's not an encyclopedia's purpose to alert people to the virtues of one or another game. Geogre 22:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — A notable game and informative article. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 22:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Not nearly notable enough.--Peephole 20:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Per BattleMaster AfD and spirit of the law. This particular AfD as well as the referenced BattleMaster AfD are part of a recent effort to tar any and every browser-based strategy game with the "non-notable" brush, mainly by a severely misguided attempt to apply WP:WEB. I urge editors trumpeting "non-notable" to use common sense and to consider the spirit of the law in these cases. The reasoning and spirit behind the WP:WEB guideline is to keep Wikipedia from being flooded with vanity pages, random fan sites and the like. This reasoning is sound and can be put quite simply: Anyone can create a vanity web page. Anyone with a copy of MS Paint can create a web comic. Very few can create a successful browser-based game.

The creation of the sort of sites against which WP:WEB attempts to guard is a trivial matter. However, there is nothing trivial about creating a robust, multi-player game such as those in question. Creating such a game that manages to attract a user-base outside your own small group of friends is a feat in and of itself. Creating a game that actually attracts thousands of players and has hundreds online at any given time should be considererd extremely notable.

Please note that I'm not arguing for the inclusion of any and every online game that comes down the pipe, but each of the games that I've seen proposed for deletion in the last few days has a substantial user base. If the editors in favor of deletion honestly believe that these games are as dime-a-dozen as the vanity pages and such that WP:WEB is actually designed for, then perhaps they'd care to point me to the thousands of browser-based games that I'm apparently missing. Better yet, perhaps they can whip up a robust multi-player browser-based game as an example of the trivial and "non-notable" nature of these games (bonus points if it attracts any measure of user base outside their own circle of friends). In the time it takes them to do that, I'll be over here churning out hundreds of vanity pages, a few "Lost" fansites, and a webcomic or 50. --grummerx 23:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: So where do you draw the line? What is a notable webgame and what is not? --Peephole 23:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: That's a valid question and warrants further discussion by the community at large. One of the points I've been trying to make is that in the absence of a clear line, it's up to editors to use common sense in assessing the merit of a particular article. It should also be noted that without a clear line, it's far better to err on the side of leniency rather than rashly deleting legitimate information from Wikipedia. --grummerx 01:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: While I think this article needs cleaning up and sharpening (much like a lot of articles that are not marked for deletion), Pardus is a real community with its own history, and its deletion is being determined by people who seem to have something against this. I fall completely on the side of leniency.--Heruka2006 18:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: How are we supposed to apply WP:SOFTWARE when it is a proposed guideline and not a static one? Personally, I'd vote a weak keep per the publications listed, but this article does contain a fair amount of fancruft. Sethimothy 21:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Peephole 12:59, 4 August 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.