Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stargate Wars
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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Stargate Wars
Non-notable fan-made (unauthorized/unlicensed) online game. It's one of many more-or-less interchangable "Build an army by paying us money or recruiting other players" online games, and doesn't, as far as I can tell, have any sort of news coverage or other impact. Google backs this up, with 133 unique links, many of which are people spamming to try to recruit other players. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 15:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable game.--Isotope23 18:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree that it is unauthorized but, I my self have been getting help on improving it and a number of new players said that they saw the page and they liked it because it was actually more helpful than the actual site. If it is deleted now, before it can even get a chance to gain some traffic, some will be mad, and others will be disappointed until someone trys to make it again. Please just give the page a little bit longer.
-
- Which not only makes this non-notablem unauthorised and fancruft. I'm pretty sure that an article designed partially as a walkthough and partialy as a recruiting advertisment has no place in an encyclopaedia. Delete Saberwyn 07:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn. Dottore So 11:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete not-notable game. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
What exactly defines a game as non-notable? Whether authorized or not, the game has attracted almost 40 thousand users since it was put online 8 months ago, more than 16 thousand of which are still active in the game and/or the forums. The administrator of the game has constantly made updates to the game to please users, as well as improve gameplay. The administrator is currently developing the 4th version of the game, giving all users a gaming experience that they can look forward to on a daily basis. To call the game non-notable is arrogant and pompous, and the current article does a great job of defining the game's brief but storied history, as well as giving new users an idea of what they need to do to excel in the game.
- Almost 40,000 usernames, in a game where gaming the system to make false usernames for the referral bonus is rewarded? That's less than you'd think. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Cheaters who create double accounts are found and baned by Admin and Mods of StargateWars, many cheat fixes are implimented to prevent multi accounting. 40k players NOT 40k usernames. More players are joining every day and unactive accounts are deleted. Stargatewars is most popular Stargate game on all the web.
First of all, the game does give limited referral bonuses, but as it seems you haven't done more than give it a cursory glance you don't seem to realise that these bonuses are essentially useless for anyone trying to do even marginally well at the game. Link clicks from the referral links are limited to 50 per day, which in the grand scheme of things would count for about 1% of the growth a player can realise in a day through actual gameplay (i.e. nobody bothers with the link clicks anymore). Furthermore while there are bonuses for supporting the game people can play (and be quite successful at it) without paying a cent. In fact some top players have received supporter bonuses FOR FREE from the admin for their excellent gameplay. A few players known for their excessive donations have been singled out and targeted as the practice of donating to achieve rank is strongly frowned on. The game appears to be initially based on Kings of Chaos (which has it's own wiki) and expanded the concept to create a far richer more engrossing gaming experience. So it's non-notable why? Because there are no media articles on it? Much that is noteworthy fails to appear in the media and even more that is not noteworthy appears in the media with all too much frequency. Perhaps to you it's not, but to the stargate fans out there this game is noteworthy and considering that it is the longest running sci fi show in US history and second only to Doctor Who all time globally, I think that it's a testament to how Stargate has entered into various different facets of culture outside of television.--Freeside 07:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- It's a blatant clone of another game, not very popular as free online games goes, has gotten absolutely no press coverage despite an entire industry devoted to covering games, hasn't even been around very long, and isn't even terribly significant in the context of the Stargate fandom. (I'm not disagreeing that Stargate is notable; but, then again, we're not talking about deleting the Stargate SG-1 article.) When this game is as popular and influential as Kings of Chaos, it will merit its own article, but until then it doesn't. Sorry. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- "I'm pretty sure that an article designed partially as a walkthough and partialy as a recruiting advertisment has no place in an encyclopaedia. Delete Saberwyn 07:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)". Two things: 1: This article does not contain any recruitment links AT ALL! Have you even bloody read the article?!
2: Has anyone actually read 'What wikipedia is not' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information)? I quote: "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports" - thus, why does an article need to be about media? I quote again, from the same source: "Subjects [people] of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives." However: no where in that OFFICIAL article by the wikipedia admin does it say that non-human subjects need to be 'notable'. So there! Keep or put yourself at the mercy of all Stargate nerds And I am just about to add an external link to my own walkthrough guide; this article will act as a brief summary of the game, but not a walkthrough (whoever suggested it was). ZPMMaker 08:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Are you threating Wikipedia in your vote? How absolutely silly.
As for claims of notability, as a matter of practice all things need to assert notability, unless (and this a very controversial exception) that thing is an inherently notable thing (and online web-based games aren't even close). - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
No, that was not a threat (what made you think it was?). Also, it does not say that it needs to be notable. If you know where it says it must, please point it out to us.ZPMMaker 11:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Unofficial, unlicensed, and non-canon. (And this is coming from a Stargate nerd.) slab 13:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
As far as I can gather there are two main points supporting deletion. First that the game is unlicensed, hence not fully legal, and second that the game's popularity is deemed too limited to warrant inclusion. Correct me if I'm wrong. Now the first point is actually irrelevant. Something being authorized/sanctioned is not a pre requisite for relevance. I think you would agree after a moment of thought that unsanctioned/unauthorized work can often be equally or more relevant. So saying "Unofficial, unlicensed, and non-canon" is essentially moot. As for the second point, if using Kings of Chaos (KoC) as a metric, a comparison between the two shows that KoC has about 10 000 users online at this moment compared to about 500 for Stargate Wars (SGW). Now this indicates that SGW has about 5% of the usage that KoC has. This is notable. KoC has been around for almost 5 years whereas SGW has been around for a matter of months. In any other arena, say for example web browsers, Firefox developping a user base that was about 5-10% the size of IE was certainly considered notable. --Freeside 19:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Unofficial, unlicensed, and non-canon is subject to "foxing". Don't laugh-- MGM has already gone after others for similar. SGW is also charging money for support, which could be construed as the use of MGM's copyrighted material in order to turn a profit. You know, something which MGM's legal department wouldn't take too kindly to. A cease-and-desist means that the game would likely no longer exist, making the need for an article on a short-lived web-game "essentially moot." Hence, my objection.
- Back to the current article, though: Your argument seems to basically be 'there isn't a huge userbase yet... but there might be someday! And then we'll be glad we had this article!' By that math, I could write up a web-game and have it online for five minutes... sure, it might have one user now, but if it lasts for five years like KoC, then there'll be 525 600 users! (I'd better get started with that article.)
- As far as the Firefox analogy goes, it's apples-to-oranges. In the web-browser arena, IE has something like 90% marketshare; thus 5-10% is notable, as that makes it the second most popular browser. Stargate Wars is one in how many different web-games (each with how much share of the market)? slab 23:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Who cares how notable it is?! Like I said before, no where in the official wikipedia rules site does it say a subject need be notable!!! ZPMMaker 07:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete non-encylopedic, non-notable. Pete.Hurd 05:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
What exactly defines an encyclopaedia? According to Encyclopedia, it is a 'Compendium of knowledge'; this article provides knowledge about a game, and thus, is encyclopaedic. It also need not be notable, as I have said before (see my second post on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Archangels_Of_Destruction)... Pete.Hurd, I believe your claims are invalid (not to mention the claims of everyone who claimed it was not-notable)...ZPMMaker 08:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, just because its author said we "would not be able" to delete it. — JIP | Talk 09:01, 18 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
