Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XEvil
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 no consensus after rewrite. Opabinia regalis 00:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] XEvil
Fails WP:N, WP:V, seem to be original research, every source is a link to either the main game site or the games forum. The Kinslayer 11:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. The Kinslayer 11:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as a game guide that fails WP:RS and WP:N. NeoFreak 11:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - no references to show notability. Jayden54 12:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. MER-C 13:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as above. —Wrathchild (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I think Nifboy found a reliable source. It's on the talk page. Couldn't that just be inserted? I could reduce it to stub form and only include that source.--Clyde Miller 23:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think Home of the Underdogs is a reliable source since it is an indiscriminate collection of older games. The Kinslayer 08:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well PC World has a page about it, is that good enough? I also found this, as well as this. What about these?--Clyde Miller 21:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, you've proven the game exists. That was never in question. Have a look at WP:N and WP:V, they explain what is the right kind of source. hings like proper media mentions, reviews, things of that sort, not brief descriptions of what the game is and a download button. (I'm trying to be helpful BTW.) The Kinslayer 21:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well people don't care about things unless they cost money, for the simple reason that there's always a catch, and costing money is usually it (hence lack of reviews). Therefore, most free games without a catch don't bring regular attention since it's the media's job (in America at least, the place I'm searching from) to show us the terrible and awful things about our world. In the case of video games, the game needs to be conterversal and a scapegoat of how awful video games are (to hit the target audiance of people who want videogames gone), a category which this game doesn't fit. In the case of PC game World, it is published media with a description of the game and I thought that would be enough. If that isn't enough, which to you it probably isn't, just go ahead and
deleteit. I'm tired of fighting a losing battle. But make no mistake, I'm not convinced and probably never will be that this should be deleted. I'll also hope that when you said "I'm trying to be helpful" you're not being "sarcastic or ironic in an AfD" since I usually assume some sort of good faith (you know what happens when you assume). Since "a topic is notable if it has been been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." I'll wait until another published company has a writeup about it, and now the multiple published works part will be true. Until then, it will be deleted. Cheers, Clyde Miller 23:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC).- Easy, I honestly wasn't being sarcastic. I was just making a suggestion for what is really needed in the article. If something like I had suggested was found, I would be quite happy to change my stance. I understand what your saying, and I believe people are working on clarifying metters on games such as this, because like you say, free games get very little (if any) media coverage, but could well be notable. The Kinslayer 23:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well even if I can convince you, few people who have voted come back and see how the comments and discussion are going, so I don't think I could convince the other delete voters to change their mind. However, since other people have voted keep I think I will change my vote to keep, and I'll do my best to clean up the article.--Clyde Miller 01:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Finished with my rewrite. Spelling aside (could someone look that over?), I hope it is a better.--Clyde Miller 21:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- I just finshed rationales with the images, and I think this is shaping up to be an okay article after some major cleanup. Comments? voting change? Ideas?--Clyde Miller 00:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Finished with my rewrite. Spelling aside (could someone look that over?), I hope it is a better.--Clyde Miller 21:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well even if I can convince you, few people who have voted come back and see how the comments and discussion are going, so I don't think I could convince the other delete voters to change their mind. However, since other people have voted keep I think I will change my vote to keep, and I'll do my best to clean up the article.--Clyde Miller 01:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Easy, I honestly wasn't being sarcastic. I was just making a suggestion for what is really needed in the article. If something like I had suggested was found, I would be quite happy to change my stance. I understand what your saying, and I believe people are working on clarifying metters on games such as this, because like you say, free games get very little (if any) media coverage, but could well be notable. The Kinslayer 23:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well people don't care about things unless they cost money, for the simple reason that there's always a catch, and costing money is usually it (hence lack of reviews). Therefore, most free games without a catch don't bring regular attention since it's the media's job (in America at least, the place I'm searching from) to show us the terrible and awful things about our world. In the case of video games, the game needs to be conterversal and a scapegoat of how awful video games are (to hit the target audiance of people who want videogames gone), a category which this game doesn't fit. In the case of PC game World, it is published media with a description of the game and I thought that would be enough. If that isn't enough, which to you it probably isn't, just go ahead and
- Well, you've proven the game exists. That was never in question. Have a look at WP:N and WP:V, they explain what is the right kind of source. hings like proper media mentions, reviews, things of that sort, not brief descriptions of what the game is and a download button. (I'm trying to be helpful BTW.) The Kinslayer 21:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well PC World has a page about it, is that good enough? I also found this, as well as this. What about these?--Clyde Miller 21:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think Home of the Underdogs is a reliable source since it is an indiscriminate collection of older games. The Kinslayer 08:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Kc4 00:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Comrade Hamish Wilson 00:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep with a strong tip of the cap to Clyde Miller for fighting for the article. The multiple independent coverage is pretty thin, but it's arguably there based on the links provided. So, I default to keep. -Kubigula (ave) 04:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete (was keep til I noticed the guideline said MULTIPLE) I've played this game for the past 5 years regularly. Lots of people know about it, but wikipedia is bureacracy and is about following the rules. See Wikipedia:Notability_(computer_and_video_games), does this article meet any of the criteria? Has the game has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the creator of the game: The underdogs is the only real review of the game, I suggest everyone actually read it if they voted on it. Has the game has won an award from a notable award-giving body independent of the game creators, sponsors, and publishers? No, but it has an underdogs award but is underdogs notable? Has the game been converted to other media? No. So it fails 2 of the 3 guidelines but the guidelines say you only need 1 of these. Thus is underdogs trustable? Home_of_the_Underdogs seems to be notable enought to be included on Wikipedia but there are policies against using inclusion as an argument. So the question is, is underdogs notable? What are other sources which document free and old games are there any more notable than underdog? I think I'll side on keep just to be safe. --Quirex 20:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Note I looked and the guidelines said multiple sources so no I'm changing my vote to Weak Delete. Wikipedia policy forces the vote. --Quirex 20:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- I agree - the Underdogs article was the only decent review I could find. If you look at the links provided by Clyde Miller, you'll also see two tiny reviews on PC World and About.com, both of which are clearly appropriate sources. As I said, the reviews themselves are so small (bordering on inconsequential) that I can't really quibble much with a delete vote. I'm on the fence myself, but I think that the cited sources arguably satisfy policy. So, I defaulted to a weak keep. -Kubigula (ave) 23:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Well the "policy" you citied says "The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy"." Since that means that a source doesn't have to be a giant review, PC World (published) should be ok (that makes multiple sources). Also Notability is under discussion, so I'm not sure how much we should trust that. Right now I'm not sure good how good of an idea it is to vote based on policys under discussion or proposed policys. Just my two cents--Clyde Miller 23:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- I went through and read all of the article's references. The PC World link is just a trivial description of the source which is so small it probably could've come from the README or the .lsm file itself. The PC World is trivial and thus it really has no bearing as a reliable link. Thus it still unfortunately lacks multiple non-trivial sources. Is there a PC World article which links to that PC World Article? --Quirex 00:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- I went through a lot of google hits, and I have to admit that I couldn't find any reviews that were clearly non-trivial (other than Underdogs). Every other mention of the game is of the 1-2 paragraph variety. Some of them do appear to be legitimate (albeit semi trivial) reviews rather than something coming from the developers e.g.. You almost got me to teeter over the line to a weak delete, but it's now an OK article as rewritten, so I'm sticking with my weak keep so long as there's a non-trivial rationale for notability. -Kubigula (ave) 04:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, many game sites have this, no need here YamSan 20:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I'm a little skeptical of the validadity of this vote considering this user has made three edits to wiki, and two are afds votes. A little odd for a new user. Also, I'm not sure if your reasoning is valid. What do you guys think? YamSam, what's the deal?--Clyde Miller 00:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above points. Sharkface217 04:20, 2 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.
