Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 4th Coming (2nd 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 no consensus. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The 4th Coming

The 4th Coming (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Was recreated a few weeks after Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_4th_Coming deleted it. Recommend salting. I speeded it and the speedy was ignored and then someone changed it to prod and then the prod was removed without reason by someone without a talk page at this current time. It basically falls under the speedy deletion for Db-repost. Anomo 04:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The only reliable source I see is the game's own website and that of the company that makes it. There's no clear evidence of notability, here. I've also tagged it for speedy as a repost, as the editor who removed that tag is not an admin and can't see the old version to judge whether it is substantially different from this one.--Kchase T 04:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep The more I look at some of these sources, the more I waver. There's this magazine article Sean K references below (though a date and page # would be nice). There's also these three sources form the first AfD: [1], [2], [3]. The first source is from le Journal du Net, which seems to be a reliable source. The next two are probably gaming fan sites, but the webhits and number of players (ordinarily bad means of establishing notability, but OK in uncertain cases like this) lead me to opine weak keep.--Kchase T 05:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Thanks for re-posting those links. To be honest I don't have a copy of the magazine anymore (it would've been almost 10 years ago), but I am currently looking in to this to try and find out. Sean K 08:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (speedily) and salt. Grutness...wha? 04:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as repost. MER-C 04:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP Overall I found it to be good article, thank you for your time. Rcehoppe 08:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete and salt - no independent support of notabliity. SkierRMH,09:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• There do seem to be quite lot of hits for this in French. I don't speak French sufficiently well that I can tell whether these are non-trivial coverage of the game or not for certain, but they seem to be. Morwen - Talk 10:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Bec-Thorn-Berry 11:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I didn't even realize that the original was deleted, or there was one before. I removed the deletion notice as it seemed to be claiming that this was simply a repost of the same Wikipedia article that was up before, without disagreement, and was to be deleted in 10 days if it was not removed. This one was recreated from scratch by me, referenced, and it is definitely notable. I would have referenced articles stating it's popularity if I found that they were important pertaining to the article. All it takes is a simple google search with quotations around it, and you'll find tons of websites on it http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&hs=E2j&q=%22the+4th+coming%22&btnG=Search&meta= The game has had many players, well over 100 000, and has been in existence since around the time of Ultima Online, as I have cited. To what extent of notability, I'm not sure some of you know what you're talking about, as there are tons of other Wikipedia articles with far less notability that aren't subject to deletion at this moment in time. Perhaps IGN making reference to The 4th Coming is notable? http://rpgvault.ign.com/articles/357/357519p1.html I apologize if I didn't get the format of this discussion correct. -Merodies (December 11th/06)
  • No worries about the format; the important thing is that you're participating. I and another editor tagged it as {{db-repost}} because we couldn't see the older version. An admin (Proto, below), saw they were different and removed that tag. As to your point about other articles, see WP:INN. Because Wikipedia is open content, it's difficult to ensure every article meets our standards, since new ones are coming in all the time.--Kchase T 05:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I find the large number of hits to be persuasive, even if most are gaming sites. Keeping WP:BIAS in mind I think we should assume Meodies' good faith. Akihabara 13:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• I have no idea how to use this wikki as i never have used it before, I am an Sysop for The Trilogy server of this game, There are 10 active servers of this current game currently run under the Dialsoft Corperation. There are over 1,000 players it may not be as new as many as the other games but the bias of the wikki is really sad, Considering the wikki is suppose to be a source of information, there are many servers 5 english and I belive 5 are french and there are lincenses currently being sold and we just had a graphics update so that i can compete a little with newer games. There are sites such as http://t4cbible.com that tells of the community and what servers do what, there is also http://fountianscroll.com the orginal post had a list of all the currently active servers and how to connect to them. There as stated above there are far lest notable things on here again what's it matter as long as it's an active currently running game I posted sites you can find information then where you can find the game simply because your asking for validation of a community, from those pages if you want to verify the game please check out the list of game sites and choose one to take a look at, the download is free also gamestationstore.com sells the game if people would rather buy it, like UO or WoW and many others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.145.54 (talk • contribs)
  • What would really help is references to reviews of this in computer games magazines. If the game is as big as is claimed, this should be no trouble at all for someone who speaks French. Morwen - Talk 14:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment As I said on the previous AfD page, there was a large (multi-page if I remember correctly) article on this game in the Australian magazine PC Powerplay back when it was released. Sean K 09:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and salt per last discussion. Nothing's changed. If you want to keep it, post a link to a reputable, third-party site (WP:V) that asserts that this is a truly notable game (as per WP:GAMES). If it's not notable and it's not verifiably sourced, it's not a good entry for an encyclopedia. Deltopia 14:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 18:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:GAMES, which is the standard way toe stablish notability of these games. Note it is not a speedy candidate, as the content is markedly different from that deleted via the prior AFD. Proto::► 18:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete lacks adequate establishment of notability from reputable independent sources.-- danntm ^T _C 23:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:GAMES. TSO1D 01:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, WP:GAMES is not a guideline yet. oTHErONE
• Keep - I created the old article which was deleted, so I think that the fact that somebody else has come along to create a new one shows that there is interest in this topic. Sean K 09:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

_(Contribs) 06:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and salt For the same reasons I gave in the last AfD. All the current sources do is establish that the game exists, which is not under contention. Still nothing to establish any notability for the game. A lot of the references are to the main game site. It fails WP:N and WP:RS. As is so often the case, where are the multiple non-trivial independant media mentions? The Kinslayer 15:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per Akihabara, tag for cleanup, and direct editors to (re)read WP:CVG for content and style help (lead is clunky, poor WP:N/V refs). Comment: This wreaks of over zealous AFD nominations. --MegaBurn 23:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It sure does. People shouldn't be allowed to nominate an article for deletion if they're unwilling to participate in a discussion about it. Why have none of the people who disputed the games notability responded to my claim of it being featured in a magazine? Sean K 00:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Basically. One person mentions a guideline that isn't even finalized, and like two others respond quickly after voting for deletion because of the same thing. I'm hoping this article won't be deleted because of people blindly voting without even reading the facts that some of us have stated.Merodies 02:58, 14 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.