Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Andreas Multiplayer (3rd nomination)

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 as not a single keep argument is grounded in policy. east.718 at 09:47, November 25, 2007

[edit] San Andreas Multiplayer

San Andreas Multiplayer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Previously kept on the basis of no consensus. In nine months there have been no reliable, independent sources added; no articles, reviews, interviews, etc. Unsourced importance assertion regarding a petition. The article reads like a game guide in places. Drat (Talk) 08:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep And change Wikipedia policy. I read the article. It's well written, informative, and would be useful to a reader curious about the game. Nobody is saying it is inaccurate, or promoting a point of view, or a commercial product. While it and a vast number of Wikipedia articles are not notable enough to make the cut for a paper publication, the notability cutoff is much lower on disk. The article lacks independent sources but has links directly to the primary source if anyone wants to verify anything or try playing the game. The entire reason it is up for deletion is Wikipedia policies. The policy about not depending on primary sources is a Wikipedia artifact that should be reconsidered. Academics and paper encyclopedia authors always rate primary sources as better than secondary ones.

Grue [1], is likely to be deleted for the same reason. I think it is a better encyclopedia article than Final_Fantasy_VII in spite of the latter having 122 citations. [2]

I am not a player. I don't even know anyone who plays this game. Keith Henson (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Your comment is more of a reason to delete than to keep. There is no lower "notability cutoff", just a lower inclusion threshhold for things that are notable. Paper encyclopedias do not "rate" primary sources higher than secondary ones (journalists do, but this isn't journalism). The reason primary sources aren't reliable is because they haven't been verified. I could say anything, and it can be used as a primary source. The primary shows it exists, now show it's important. And for the record, people can make well-written, informative articles that are blatantly false. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I accept "a lower inclusion threshhold for things that are notable" as the way I should have worded it.

Re primary sources, bias can be inserted at any level, and you have to use sense in dealing with primary as well as secondary sources. But I have a hard time imagining encyclopedic historians valuing a secondary report of a battle over the first hand reports, especially if they have reports from both sides of the battle. And in the case of something like a game on the net it's right there to verify on any point but usage, and maybe even that. Re secondary sources about non-commercial games, there isn't the push to get hard copy articles written because it isn't making money to pay a PR department. So even if a lot of people were playing a game, it would not get much (or even any) press and that needs to be factored in.

As for "well-written, informative articles that are blatantly false," you got that right! Unfortunately an article may be blatantly false to someone who understands the topic but not to readers/editors when the topic is well outside their field. Sadi Carnot got away with that for two years before he was banned. [3] Keith Henson (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• The idea is that, if it's significant enough, someone will write something about it. That's the threshold of notability for everything here, and if you want to change it, it's an uphill battle. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The reason I am saying keep, is that these fan designed levels and game add-ons are fairly rare. We should have a record of some of them anyway, as they are completely new concept (In computer-ese anyway). Now that I think about it, its like customising your car with after market products, but I still it achieves some notability. scope_creep (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete There are absolutely no references or cites to show this mod is notable. Change that, and I'll change my mind. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not hard to see with a few keywords (game and game developer names) that this game variation has a substantial presence on the web. Wonder what is going to happen to WP:RS when most publications move to the web? Of course even peer reviewed paper articles won't always be acceptable to some. Keith Henson (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• With a few days and some well-worded phrases, I can have a substantial presence on the web as well. The web itself, by the way, isn't necessarily unreliable. Many "reliable sources" are web-based. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I would be very impressed if you were able to build up "a substantial presence on the web" in a few days. It happens I am moderately well known on the web, but that was non-intentional and took decades of doing things like here: [4].

• Weak keep I'm trying not to rely on saying that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but List of Half-Life 2 mods and Deus Ex mods are both around. However, without sources (and not just the game's homepage), it's a weak article. —ScouterSig 22:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Those are lists. Not articles. Two very different kinds of creature. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It's still a well written article, something not all that common on wikipedia. Perhaps I can move it to a place where it would be appreciated before you delete it. Keith Henson (talk) 05:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well-written or not, it's still unsourced. My problem's not with the name of the article. (and -I- am not the one deleting it, so there's no need for the accusatory tone) --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no intent to be accusatory. Should have been more specific, exchange "you" for "some admin." Still, it's obvious where you stand on the issue. It's not that there are no sources, there is lots of stuff on the web about the game and the developers, it's just that there are no *acceptable* sources. Wiki lawyers will may cut the number of articles by half over the next year or three. Is this good or bad? I don't know, but it sure results in a lot of strife. A related problem is topic clueless editors and admins driving out people who know a topic well enough to speak authoritatively about it. It's possible that one may have a solution outside of wikipedia. Keith Henson (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• "Lots of stuff on the web"? Great. Put it in. The debate over whether or not sources are "acceptable" at this point is moot. Right now, there are no sources. If there's a lot of things out there on the web, then start putting it into the article. Or post them here to sort them out. All this "It exists, and it's notable, just not by the rules, trust us" stuff doesn't work nor help. Believe it or not, most "delete" voters I've seen are not slavering wolves out to kill articles they don't like...I would love to save the article, and I'll bet others would change their minds too. We're even willing to help, if you need it, just ask. But you need to step up and get some sources, not just complain the notability rules are unfair. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

http://forum.fok.nl/topic/900359

http://guide.opendns.com/?url=%22San+Andreas+mulitplayer%22+kyeman&client=ff20

Results 1 - 10 of 460 for "San Andreas multiplayer" kyeman

ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/san_andreas_multiplayer

http://forum.cstrike.ro/f/Jocuri-online/16845/TuTOrIaL-GTA-San-Andreas-MULTIPLAYER.html

http://planetgrandtheftauto.gamespy.com/fullstory.php?id=22445 (June 2005)

http://gathering.tweakers.net/forum/list_messages/1141395

In 10 minutes I found the game is discussed in at least 4 languages, Dutch, German, Russian and Romanian(?). Some of these are very likely reviews by third parties because they list games besides this one. (I can't tell for sure since I don't read those languages.) I suspect the fans don't care enough to work the third party cites into a Wikipedia article even if web sources like these were permitted. If the article is deleted here it is on other wikis.

http://www.grandtheftwiki.com/wiki/San_Andreas_Multiplayer

Which as a guess is more important to them.

I don't know enough about the subject to edit the article even if I could read the foreign sources.

I have no feel for the notability of a multi user video game played played in a number of countries by as many people as live in a substantial city. If it is notable (and note that I don't feel qualified to answer that) you could be doing Wikipedia a disservice by not looking at the wider picture in spite of the article's lack of cites.

It probably doesn't make a bit of difference to information seekers since other wikis have sprung up and seekers can find the information there. Cites or no cites the notability of an article in a specialized area is obvious to topic specialized local editors who know the subject.

Wiki editors working on articles in topic areas they don't understand had to have a mechanical way to judge them. It has devolved into an army of wiki lawyers who value form over content because they don't understand the subjects.

This discussion has been interesting since it directly relates to the problems wikipedia has with experts rapidly getting disgusted and leaving. My recent experience lead me to the conclusion that this problem can't be solved within wikipedia given the social context that has evolved here. The spontaneous solution of fragmentation is probably the best that can be expected. Keep or delete. In the larger picture it doesn't matter. Keith Henson (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Most of those are forum posts, which don't count for anything. That gamespy link, though, qualifies, but it's not much more than a press-release paragraph...it's the best we have to go on, right now. It's not even on their list of San Andreas mods, though, so that doesn't help. --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 13:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:N due to a complete lack of sources, notability is not inherited, popularity is not notability. More than enough time has passed for someone to shake out some sources if they were available, I had a look a few days ago and could find none.Someone another (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

From the wash of red on the page, it looks like 95% of the video games are going to be booted. At this rate, wikipedia may shrink even faster than I anticipated. The material isn't likely to be lost though. Keith Henson (talk) 05:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest reading this. Notability isn't based on the inclusion or deletion of other articles, even similar ones. Each article stands on it's own merits. In fact, skimming the entire WP:AADD page may do some good. --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

"This." A pointer into 54,569 bytes of finely argued wiki policy, where the policy itself has been subjected to more than 500 edits but in fact depends on arbitrary opinions of what is a "source." I.e., if some editor and their friends don't like an article, or an editor, chances are high it gets deleted. Or they can take a trivial mention and the fact some subject is being discussed in 4 languages as "notability."

I noticed in that deletion list that someone put up one of the Super Mario games for deletion. It didn't pass though most of the rest did. Understand that I don't give a hoot if a single video game of any kind was put in the wikipedia. Don't play them, don't care, only accidentally came upon this deletion notice. Am only interested in this because I generally hate to see information lost (my wife is a professional archivist and librarian) and since I am into evolutionary psychology the intense social interactions are interesting at a meta level.

Jeeze. Google lists 56,600 web pages for wikipedia inclusionist deletionist. Keith Henson (talk) 18:39, 23 November 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.