Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starships!

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 regular delete per consensus of established editors. --Coredesat 06:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Starships!

Starships! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Apparently non-notable web game that fails the WP:WEB notability requirements, having only vague or trivial sources. --McGeddon 08:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. No reliable secondary sources, and a vague bibliography with no reason stated for how the books relate to the subject. --Wafulz 11:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Why WP:SALT? Has this article been created and deleted before? --McGeddon 14:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
No, this user's just new. Salting is reserved for repeated recreation of inappropriate material. --Wafulz 14:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
He's not just new, he's a single purpose account, and strongly influenced this nomination too! Matt Brennen 18:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - The main article contributors knew this AfD was coming and have been trying to find sources for the article. Outside of unreliable sources such as blogs and message boards, none have appeared. DarkSaber2k 14:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep This article stands very well on it's own merits. The supposed reason for deletion is completely ridiculous. Here are three good secondary sources just as a quick example. [MMORPG Review], [MMORTS.com], and [Crimson reviews]. All are independent third party sources with editorial oversight. There are many many more discussed on the talk page. Furthermore, a quick look around the MMORPG articles will reveal that this article is among the MOST sourced, not the least. This article needs no defense, anyone taking a good look at it can see it's well sourced. Matt Brennen 17:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
As has been explained to you on Talk:Starships!, those are user-submitted or personal web pages by writers with no professional relevance, and are therefore self-published sources, which should not be cited.
The existence of worse-sourced articles does not mean that your article should be kept - see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:FISHING. --McGeddon 18:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
First, it's not *my* article. I make no claim to it. Second the reasons you have used to disqualify eighteen or so sources are ridiculous. Take MMORPG-Review as an example above, you said it was a "self published amateur site", when in fact it has a lot of employees, and has been publishing neutral reviews since 2001. This is shown HERE. The same distortions occur for many of the other "disqualified" sources. Matt Brennen 18:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
2003? I can only see ten reviews on the MMORPG-review site, though, and they're of a very low standard. Please try to read WP:RS at some point: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." --McGeddon 18:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
They have over 250 reviews archived, but at least you aren't saying that a giant in the industry isn't a "self published amateur site" anymore, now take a good look at the rest of the perfectly good sources you've "disqualified". Matt Brennen 19:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
There's no link to these 250 reviews, and their "feature2.html" URL schema stops at "feature3". They're not mentioned anywhere in Google. It's a self-published amateur site. --McGeddon 19:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The fact that you can say that about a review site that has been around for years and has ten employees, and has done hundreds of reviews says a lot about how you have been "disqualifying" these sites! Matt Brennen 19:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Request to Administrators This nomination to delete seems to be some sort of retaliation for my comments on the recently deleted Gothador article, as the single purpose accounts from that article seem to be coming over here. I would like to see this article stay, but if it get's deleted then so-be-it. But since the main reason to delete is a claim that the article is inadequitely sourced, and since the response is that is has plenty of sourcing, I'm asking the administrators to do either a speedy keep or a speedy delete. There is no reason to drag this on for days and days arguing back and forth with single-purpose-accounts left over from the deleted Gothador article. Thank you. Matt Brennen 18:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I originally flagged the Starships article for notability concerns on the day of its creation, two weeks ago; my putting it forward for deletion is just a follow-up of this, and is unconnected to the Gothador article, which I've never had any connection with. Please try to assume good faith. --McGeddon 18:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about you obviously. I just want an administrator to look at the sources for themself and make a speedy judgment. The fact that you've been trying to kill the article since day one is irrelevant. Matt Brennen 18:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
You said the nomination for deletion was "some sort of retaliation" over Gothador, but it was me that nominated the article. If you've got some SPAs out for your blood for whatever reason, then I'm sure the administrator who judges this case will bear that in mind, but this isn't any sort of argument for making a "speedy judgment" now that you've given your opinion of it. --McGeddon 18:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Why not speedy judge it? You say it's not sourced, I say it is. This decision can be made by an administrator in ten minutes. Speedy delete or Speedy Keep. Let's get it overwith before we are bombarded by SPAs is all I'm saying. Matt Brennen 18:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Matt, your talking a load of honk. I've acted in good faith over this but your behaviour has been apalling. Your accusing regular contributors of being single-purpose accounts from the Gothador afd 'getting revenge'. There are only two SPAs from Gothador, that being Iaganazi and Radneto, and I would be quite happy to advise the closing admin to disregard their voice. But I voted to delete that article, same as you, and McGeddon has been over this with you numerous times the last few days. This article is no better than Gothadors, and soliciting me on my talk page requesting I change my vote to keep because you voted to delete on the Gothador AfD is way out of line. I've been watching the article quietly for a couple of weeks and you have not once provided a satisfactory source, despite being told in quite explicit detail what a reliable source actually is. DarkSaber2k 19:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy deletion is a process with strictly defined criteria, and a speedy keep can only be invoked during an AfD if it meets particular set of circumstances. These aren't things to be demanded by editors just because they're feeling impatient. --McGeddon 19:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the article does stand a hell of a good chance of being deleted under WP:SNOW conditions. DarkSaber2k 19:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Not really. This isn't a completely facetious made-up web game, or anything, and there's still a chance that another editor will suddenly provide appropriate sources for it. Brennen's inability to provide reliable sources could just be that he doesn't understand WP:RS and has chosen to defend weak self-published sources rather than looking for better ones; this doesn't mean that proper sources don't exist. --McGeddon 19:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I looked before the AfD was placed, and I found nada. But yeah, stranger things have happened I suppose. DarkSaber2k 19:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy deleting under WP:SNOW is reserved for grossly inappropriate articles that cannot be deleted under the usual speedy criterias. This could have been speedied under A7 if it wasn't for the fact that a) MacGeddon is not 100% sure that a reliable source cannot be found and b) this has become controversial and A7 specifically says that controversial articles should not be speedied. Since there are !votes in both directions the AfD may not be speedy closed but must run for the entire 5 day period. The only thing you would get out of speedy closing this is a new round of arguing at deletion review after which this would be sent back to AfD for round 2 based on a stupid technicality like inappropriate speedy closing. And wouldn't that be waste of time?? MartinDK 07:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • In spite of all the vitriol, The article stands quite fine on it's own merits. There are three perfectly good sources mentioned above. Anybody can look at them. Jumping up and down ranting about how they are "self published" when they clearly are not, will not make them so. Anybody with two eyes can see that they are long-time, independent, third-party sources with editorial oversight. One need only look at them. The game also appears in several books about the industry, I could go on and on, but I don't need to. An admin need only click on the articles on the talk page. Matt Brennen 19:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Of those three sources listed above, I just added two bogus articles. See if you can find them. Why not have a go yourself? And the other one works like this. Reassuringly accesible for anyone to write their own stuff isn't it? And THAT'S why they aren't reliable sources, as for the third one, it's more a personal judgement call, I would call it a dubious rather than unreliable source. DarkSaber2k 19:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not dubious at all. An article gets submitted, and then an editor reads it and decides if it is worth posting. Much different from automatic inclusion. Your first attempts were all taken down, were they not? Have you not noticed that your submissions have yet to appear? They are in review!Matt Brennen 19:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This is actually funny. I can see your bogus review on the crimson site getting taken down every time you put it up. This is only proving that it's a VERY GOOD source of neutral info. Matt Brennen 19:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Your assuming I have the literacy of a retarded cocker spaniel then. I just got e-mailed about it's acceptance. Anyone can write a respectable article if their mildly literate, it's easy to sound like you know what your talking about. I think maybe you assumed 'bogus' as in a complete crapcake of an article. No, I just whipped up a review of a game I never played, only heard of. DarkSaber2k 19:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Well anybody can be deceptive I suppose. Still, it goes through a review process, and that's all thats needed. Now add this review site to the 20 or so others, some with internal reviewers (Like MMORPG-Review), some that take submissions, and add it also to the books, and to the dozens of fan sites, and it EASILY shows notability. Matt Brennen 19:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
No, because user submitted review sites are non-reliable sources, accoridng those darned reliability guidelines you keep ignoring. The point is that they don't employ anyone, so there is no accoutability if an article like mine gets through. Someone can lose a job if a reporter writes an inaccurate article, but no-one cares if someone submitted a report about a game they never actually played on sites like that. And as for the 1 other source available, I personally hold it as dubious. It's my judgement, I wont change that. It will be up to the closing admin to decide if that's a valid call. It's certainly not enough to make me change my decision, for the reasons listed exhaustively above and on the article talk page. DarkSaber2k 19:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Um all three of the review sites given above have ten or more employees, and a review process, that makes them reliable. Here's another site which I encourage the admin to examine, which was "discounted" because McGeddon said it was a "Blog", lol. http://www.free-games.com.au...I can go on and on with these. It is not a blog, it is a perfectly legit review site, with a submission process that takes several days of review.Matt Brennen 20:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, you can strike all of these sites, and STILL have more than enough sources to prove notability. Matt Brennen 20:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, USER REVIEW SITES ARE NOT RELIABLE SOURCES. I can also go on and on. DarkSaber2k 20:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
and again, USER REVIEW SITES take automatic submissions, these have a review process, and again, even taking those out of the picture there is still plenty of sourcing. This stupid back and forth is why I wanted a speedy judgment one way or the other, but I guess it doesn't meet the criteria. You say it's not sourced enough, I say it is. It's classic "he says" - she says", and it's demeaning. I really wish an administrator could get this over with one way or another. Matt Brennen 20:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I said free-games.com.au was a "generic directory" (which runs entirely on reciprocal links with game descriptions written by the owners of the sites), and Wafulz said it had "blog style comments'. This is, if anything, a classic "he says, everybody else says". --McGeddon 20:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Please cite any articles written by owners. They have a 14 day review process. But even so, it's hardly a blog. It's a review site. I'm not even claiming it as a source,thats for an admin to decide, I mentioned it to show how these sources are constantly being mis-labeled. You guys claim sites are blogs when they are not, you claim sites are self published when they are not, you personally called MMORPG-review a personal site when they have TEN EMPLOYEES! This artical is WELL sourced, and mislabeling the sources, and fudging facts, will not change that. Matt Brennen 21:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Nobody has claimed it to be a blog. The fact that free-games.com.au says that "you need to have a link from your site (the one you enter in the link field) to our site" suggests that most are probably written by the owners of the site, that's all. If anyone can submit a glowing review of their own site, then it isn't a "credible published material with a reliable publication process".
Sorry if my use of "personal" is confusing. A site can still be a self-published source even if its creator has a few friends helping out with reviews and hosting. The issue is whether the writers of MMORPG-review are "well-known, professional researcher[s]", and from the quality of their writing and the lack of references to them or their site, I don't think they are. --McGeddon 21:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. There appears to be a heated argument here, but I fail to see how an online game site which has an alexa site traffic rating of over 6 million can be notable. I realize Alexa is not the end all notability check for many things, but certainly an online gaming site with a very low traffic rating is not notable. Fopkins | Talk 20:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • OMG you did not just invoke Alexa..., Alexa uses a spyware toolbar to make these counts, are you kidding? Am I to understand that Alexa, of all places, is now a reliable source of info? And the sites above are NOT? Puh-leeez. This is laughable! If Alexa is a reliable source than EVERYTHING is! People boost their alexa hits with scrips all day long, c'mon. Matt Brennen 20:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    • First off, the Alexa toolbar is not spyware. People install Alexa, and operate it under their own free will and everything the Alexa toolbar does is well defined in their privacy policy. I also do not see how the fact that people boost Alexa hits helps out that the Starships! website's traffic rating is below 6 million. Sure, there are people which take advantage of the way Alexa ratings are taken, but for every one of these users there are countless others who browse the web (either knowing or not knowing what the toolbar is doing) who report accurate statistics. While every Alexa rating has to be taken with a grain of salt, the rating of a site with such a low rating which is based off of gameplay on that very site must be considered. Fopkins | Talk 21:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree. Every Alexa Rating has to be taken with a grain of salt. (has nothing to do with notability anyway)Matt Brennen 21:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
        • please do not edit my comments. I did not intend for that section of my comment to be bolded, and I do not appreciate that you did so for me. WP:Etiquette applies on AfD pages also. Fopkins | Talk 21:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I didn't think you would take offense. I would hope that you would appreciate seeing how your own words "every Alexa rating has to be taken with a grain of salt" actually supports what I've been saying. I was hoping it would be clearer for you to read as well, but I guess not. I meant no offense, and it won't happen again. Matt Brennen 21:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Marasmusine 21:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment I have been told that this debate does not fit any of the speedy criteria. But I really wish we could get an admin to intervene. If one looks at the opening statements of "No Reliable Sources" and then later comments (particularly about mmorpg-review.com) so-called "personal" websites turn out to be independent reviewers that have been around for YEARS with a staff of employees, isn't there SOME way to put a stop to this? Can't we just close the discussion? There is no cause to delete here. Matt Brennen 22:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that AfDs have to run their course, rather than stopping as soon as one of the editors has made their case - we should wait to see what other people think, both in favour of and against the deletion. If you feel that you've given your best sources, just lean back and wait for the admin to judge it in five days' time - given that the AfD was raised on the issue of notability, it will be entirely about these sources, so if you're right and other editors on this page have been maliciously or carelessly misinterpreting WP:RS, you've nothing to worry about. --McGeddon 22:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Looking past the article's tone (which will need addressing should the article be kept), reliable third-party sources are not present. The existing link to mmorts.com is a pretty weak review. If any of the other 'dozens of review site' reviews prove to be from a good source then my opinion will be keep, of course (although stick a cleanup tag on there.) Marasmusine 22:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Looking at the reviews above, the mmorpg-review.com (although poorly written) I would say is okay for a source. If one more can be found to satisfy the 'multiple' aspect of WP:NOTE then I'll recommend a keep. Marasmusine 22:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm still out on the reliability of this one- looks to me like some friends run an MMORPG site without any establised reputation. It's not a bad source, it's just not a good one. Just my two cents though. --Wafulz 22:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment A group of friends? I think you need to learn some more about what it takes to run a site like that my friend... MartinDK 06:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
          • I'm fine, I could register a domain and post some clipart and hastily-written reviews of my favourite web games in half an hour or so. In fact, the domain mmorpg-review.com appears to have been registered only five days ago, two days before Brennen quietly added it to his list of sources.
            This would explain why there are no references to mmorpg-review in Google; there are also no relevant Google results for any of the names of the site's contributors, or copies of its reviews anywhere else, so it seems unlikely that it was a popular, authoritative site that has just recently moved to a new domain. --McGeddon 08:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Duly noted McGeddon. But if that is indeed the case then someone is taking this WAY more seriously than they ought to. I mean come on.... Who is is going to pay for hosting, a domainname and spend time creating a "fake" review site just to keep an article? I have seen fake free blogs created but come on... I'm not saying you are wrong but if you aren't then someone seriously need a break from Wikipedia. MartinDK 09:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
              • Hosting is cheap. But we should assume good faith - it doesn't matter whether Brennen was connected with the site's creation, it just matters that it appears to have been created five days ago, erroneously claims to have existed since 2003, only has ten accessible articles, is very poorly written, and can hardly be cited as a reliable source when no other web pages or search engines link to or mention it. --McGeddon 09:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Non notable article as stated above.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 22:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment The article is non-notable???? Well let's delete 99% of Wikipedia then unless you have reliable sources showing that the article does not fail WP:WEB. This not a vote. If something has already been stated you don't need to repeat it let alone repeat it in a way that clearly indicates you didn't understand what was being said to begin with. MartinDK 06:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Needs sources. Violation of WP:N Shindo9Hikaru 23:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

*Weak keep if, and only if, the two books cited have significant material on the game. DGG 23:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Notability isn't well sourced, appears to be just another flash game. I have a very, VERY slight suspicion ofconflict of interest, but I could be wrong. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Flash game? Did you even READ the article? Also where do you get your WP:COI suspicion from? Such claims are highly offensive unless you have any actual proof. Why do you think WP:VANITY is hardly ever used as an argument on AfD? A solid doze of civility would do this AfD good. MartinDK 06:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
      • You're right, a good dose of civility would do good, sir. Mind calming down and assuming good faith, please? Oh, yeah, re-read my !vote's comments IN THEIR ENTIRETY before jumping down my throat. In the meantime,I've looked again, and stricken "flash" from my comment, as you appear to be right, it's not a flash game. My !vote stands. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Very very weak delete With a heavy heart I must say that WP:WEB is not and probably won't be satisfied. This applies to OGame as well despite the game having more users than World of Warcraft. The problem here is that this is a game that happens to run through a browser. Had the game been using a client that you download we wouldn't be having this AfD because WP:WEB wouldn't be relevant. Also not all sources are online, specifically gaming magazines that you can't just scan and upload. This isn't the place to debate the ridiculously wide scope of WP:WEB so like I said a very weak delete !vote from me. MartinDK 06:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Full reviews or articles in respected gaming magazines are fine as sources - if anyone has any for Starships!, please cite them. --McGeddon 10:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Saying we should keep the article because no-one is likely to write about the subject is just warped thinking. Plenty of online games have been mentioned in reliable news source. Hattrick has been mentioned in football publications, Hollywood Stock Exchange has been mentioned in the Wall Street Journal, Earth:2025 and Utopia have both won webby awards, Popomundo has been covered by Rolling Stone magazine, Dragonspires has been in Wired magazine etc etc. So claiming no-one is going to write about broswer games is bogus. And stating that the article should be kept BECAUSE of those lack of sources is equally bogus. DarkSaber2k 11:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I can only repeat the arguments for other games in this category, which is that each needs to be judged on its own merits and that the WP community should recognise that external sourcing for articals of this nature is extremely difficult to produce. Its an interesting article on a notable game (relative to other games of its ilk and websites in general). They may still be notable within the overall picture of things, but are never likely to have BBC or other sources like that written about them Bjrobinson 09:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • We are judging this game on its own merits, and we still have not gotten multiple non-trivial sources. Game review magazines have search engines, and online reviews (if they exist) are easy to find. We've been at it for weeks with this article and still haven't found anything appropriate. If we can find existing sources for crushing by elephant, we should be able to find existing source for Starships.--Wafulz 16:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB and lack of reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Reviews look fine to me. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, sadly my search for RS also fails, and I have found no evidence that the books in the Bibliography mention this web game (As far as I can tell, they mention starships in the context of Eve Online). I would like to request that if/when this article is removed, all references to it are not also deleted (indescriminately). In my opinion, useful entries are being purged from List of multiplayer browser games because they are not notable enough to withstand an Afd. John Vandenberg 23:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No WP:RS means no WP:WEB means no article. If an interesting topic is very difficult to source ... we have no article on it until we have the sources. Sandstein 19:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:RS is pretty clear about what does and doesn't count as reliable. Axem Titanium 03:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Notability not established, websites provided are not reliable, can't find any better sources either. QuagmireDog 12:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep somewhere above i said that N would depend on the printed books--seeing the amount of discussion I've looked more carefully at the sourcing, and I think it is quite reasonable to use published web-based reviews for web phenomena--even informally published ones. We look for sources where sources are to be found. We don't look for print where there is unlikely to be print, (or for ghits when the material is older than the web). We're an encyclopedia of the real world, past and present--I never thought there would come a time when WP would be getting a little old-fashined in its methods, but that was naive. it happens to everyone and everything. DGG 05:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Did you look at the web-based reviews? No one is looking for print reviews, we're just looking for web-based reviews that pass WP:RS. Fopkins | Talk 05:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

*Speedy Keep Obvious bad faith nom and lots of SPAs coming out of the woodwork. Jtrainor 06:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Close as no consensus. There's no way anything useful will emerge out of this AFD. Jtrainor 07:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I feel that the consensus is pretty clear here. Have you read the AfD? Fopkins | Talk 18:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Care to explain the logic underlying your conclusion, especially because it's only been now four days since the opening of this AfD? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:19, 6 May 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.