Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web Boxing League

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 delete. Sr13 07:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Web Boxing League

Web Boxing League (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Three reasons. No independent references (WP:V). I've had a look, but could only find games directory entries. Lack of independent sources means it fails our WP:Notability guidelines. Whilst the lead text boasts about the number of players, popularity is not notability. Also, most of the article is game guide material and statistics, with no out-of-game context (WP:NOT). MarašmusïneTalk 15:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Do not delete

I object to this deletion. I do not believe this article should be deleted. It seems by looking at the deletion page that certain editors have targeted online games as not suitable to be in Wikipedia as a matter of personal preference. The online gaming phenomenon is part of internet culture, a global phenomenon that has social and cultural implications worldwide. While I believe there should be a threshold for inclusion, certainly an online game with a seven year history and over 100,000 players has proven itself to be sufficiently durable and popular to pass the triviality smell test. Popularity is not notability? And why not? One could argue that Wikipedia itself is more popular than it is notable. Isn't this nothing more than a big online game with millions of people playing editor?

As to the specific reasons stated above. No independent reference. I beg to differ. The article includes footnotes with links to pages written by players of the game not on the WeBL staff. These are independent articles written by players about game tactics that directly support many of the descriptions given in the article. What other type of independent references are you looking for specifically? Is nothing notable unless college professors are writing books or articles in journals?

No out of game context. Please specify what kind of out of game context you feel would make this article valid. Do you need a dissertation on the socialogical impact of internet gaming? You seem to want to hold this article up to the same editorial standards as an article on the fall of the Roman Empire. Don't arbitrarily say it lacks context without saying what would give it context. If you give us a specific criticism rather than a general criticism, we can make remedy. Exactly what kind of context do you seek? --Art of Pugilism 19:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


Context references added

I've added context references pointing to Wikipedia articles on boxing, online gaming, popular culture and video game culture. If this is not the type of context referencing you expect, then please specify. --Art of Pugilism 20:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


Should not have been marked for deletion

From Wikipedia's deletion policy: "Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion."

If you felt the page needed notability and/or references, you should have tagged it as such and not immediately nominated it for deletion. --Art of Pugilism 20:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Oki doki, I'll make this fairly brief. Independent references: The links provided are not reliable sources. From WP:Reliable sources: Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. I don't consider web pages made by players of the game to be trustworthy or authoritative.
From WP:N: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
From WP:Deletion policy: Reasons for deletion [...] Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline. (Which in this case would be WP:WEB or WP:CORP (which WP:SOFTWARE now soft redirects to.)
As I mentioned above, I have tried to look for good sources but could not find any. If such sources turn up as part of this AfD, that's great.
Finally, context. WP:WAF goes into this in some detail, but we can come back to that if WP:N and WP:V can be established. MarašmusïneTalk 21:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


Reliable Sources

"...authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." You are really not in a position to evaluate what is authoritative in relation to the game unless you have played the game. Have you? I submit to you that the only way and independent source CAN be authoritative is to have been a player of the game. All the articles written were written by accomplished players. Your definition of an authoritative source lacks context. You have no way to objectively evaluate the sources if you have never played. The quote above states "trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." As a long time player of this game having achieved great success, I can attest that these authors and articles are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. You cannot expect a peer review article on this topic. In online gaming communities, articles written by successful players are highly respected and authoritative.--Art of Pugilism 21:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


To expand on the quote I took from WP:N: "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity [...] "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject. MarašmusïneTalk 21:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Let me put 'authoritative source' into context. If, for example, Stuart Campbell wrote an article or review on Web Boxing League, that would be an acceptable source. MarašmusïneTalk 22:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


Establishing Notability by Video Game Journalism - By requiring an independent source such as Stuart Campbell, you set the bar unfairly high for this category. By this standard, you should wipe every online game from Wikipedia (which effort I believe is already underway). First, there are not quite as many Stuart Campbells running around out there to write authoritative treatises on online games as there are college professors writing arcane gobbledygook about topics of academic interest . Second, such authoritative articles are not usually particularly authoritative.

Let me quote from Wikipedia's own article on video game journalism regarding ethics:

"Unlike linear media, getting a complete sense of a game can require far longer than the time it takes to play it from start to end. Further to this, games such as RPGs can last for hundreds of hours. Computer and video game reviewers therefore tread a fine line between producing timely copy and playing enough of a game to be able to reliably critique it.

Therein lies the rub, an argument to which I have already alluded. Requiring a completely independent source for an online game is to require a source that is unauthoritative almost by definition. It puts any online game in an impossible position when trying to establish notability for Wikipedia's purposes. I don't believe it is lawyering to interpret the phrase "trustworthy and authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" to mean one has to have in depth knowledge of the subject, knowledge that can only be gained by playing. If anything I think Maramusine is lawyering by maintaining an overly rigid interpretation of the Wikipedia guidelines. That position is biased against topics that don't have a spate of pointy headed academics cranking out "authoritative" articles on subjects about which they have only superficial knowledge. I don't feel that his position is in the spirit of Wikipedia's mission to provide authoritative articles about topics of interest to the world at large.

I reiterate my assertion that the article has cited independent authorities, who are authoritative based upon their in-depth knowledge of the game. Further, I believe that there needs to be an expansion or a reinterpretation of notability guidelines addressing the video and online gaming genre to reflect that fact that the only true authorities on such games are the players themselves. --Art of Pugilism 04:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, feel free to discuss it at WP:N. Let me know if concensus changes to allow "game-guide websites made by the players" as independent sources, because I've got loads of computer games I wrote at school that I think I can get my friends to make fan-sites for. MarašmusïneTalk 08:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


I have posted a discussion comment at WP:N. As for your sarcastic comment about the computer games you wrote at school, once you get 100,000 of your friends to play it over a period of seven years, I'll be the first one to support your article. --Art of Pugilism 01:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No sarcasm intended. If only primary sources are required for verifiability (which is basically what you're suggesting), then all I have to do is claim I've had 100,000 players, per the opening sentence of WP:V: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. MarašmusïneTalk 06:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Personal web pages are not reliable sources and there's no reliability established Corpx 01:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


A Question

This site has been listed and rated on a number of online gaming sites. The ratings are player ratings, not independent reviews. They are simple averages of ratings of players, who also give their opinions of the site. Most are good, but some are not. What is the opinion of editors on the cumulative effect of player reviews as a source of notability? The online gaming sites are independent sites not associated with the game. --Art of Pugilism 01:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

  • There has to be articles about the league, not quote it. Also, could you please format your comments to be in line with the other comments? Corpx 02:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • DELETE - Ratings, player reviews and popularity are not notability. ~ JohnnyMrNinja {talk} 17:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nn, spam, list of stuff, etc. Fin©™ 10:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Another Question

In an effort to find ways to come to terms with your notability issues, I went through a few other popular browser-based internet games. I'm curious as to what qualifies for notability for sites such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattrick (Hattrick). I saw no mention of a secondary source anywhere on that page. Perhaps in the player usage graphs? We have those as well, if you like. There's also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Token_League_Football (Token League Football), which is flagged for a lack of links -- but nothing of notability, of which I found none. There is astonishingly little information on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playmaker_Football (Playmaker Football) wiki, yet it is allowed to exist. Yes, it's a stub -- but what good is an uninformative stub versus a fully written article that already exists?

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not looking for a mass deletion of every internet game on wiki -- I'm merely looking for Webl to get a chance. It boggles my mind that we're lacking notability when it isn't a problem for the above-mentioned games. Thanks in advance for any information.

JimSardonic

WP:INN should hopefully answer your questions. QuagmireDog 05:55, 23 July 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.