Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 23

Pax_Galaxia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This game is notable. The reason for deletion was that the game was not notable and information about it is not verifiable. According to Wikipedia:Notability (web), at least one criteria of notability has been met: "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster". The game is distributed through RegNow, a software publisher: regnow.com I can't say anything about verifiability of the content because I don't know what the page had before being deleted, but I think anyone can verify the basics: this is indeed a working casual strategy game that is played by at least several hundred people around the world. -- 24.34.80.231 (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Further comments: (1) please read my reply to Bobet before continuing the same line over and over. I have posted reliable, verifiable and independent sources on this game. Just because you say they are not reliable, verifiable, or independent doesn't make it so. (2) [especially to Cryptic] There are many people who contributed to the Pax Galaxia article; furthermore, why does it matter? (3) The deletion of the article was based on a half-hearted search for sources, resulting in a few poorly detailed reviews of the game and therefore a judgement that there is no information on this game. That is completely untrue, and I have provided the sources to prove it.--Agamemnus (talk)

• Comment - Not only is there a lack of reliable source material for Pax Galaxia, there is no reliable source material for Dio Games[1], the company producing the game, and Diodor Bitan/User:Diodor Bitan,[2] the game designer. The topics are from Bucharest, Romania,[3] so there may be reliable source material in that location not available on the Internet. -- Jreferee t/c 21:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The source material was obtained from the Diogames forum and the website of the game itself. If this article is recovered from deletion, the only things that should and will stay on it are factual information on this game as exists on any other game as this: development history, tactics, common game terms, etc. All of this information is obtained either from the game's forums, one of the many publishers of the game's current version, and the game's website itself. Surely you cannot deny the existence of the game (download it and play it), the author of the game (email him or look at his company's website), the existence of the company/organization diogames (look at the website)? --Agamemnus (talk) 04:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: None of those sources would be acceptable as the sole basis for the article under Wikipedia's prohibition against original research. The issue is not the existence of the game but, in this case, the lack of independent sources on which to base a neutral and encyclopedic article. Rossami (talk) 07:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia: "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories." Really? What fact or concept would you suggest is unpublished out of any of the above? If the issue is not the existence of the game, what is the issue, then? I stated what would be included in the article, and they are all pertaining to already existing _factual_ information (neutral information) that is in the game (verified by simply downloading it) and concepts in the game., how can you argue that the game forum is not independent? True, it is moderated, but different independent people post on the forums, the only way people converse about this game en masse.--Agamemnus (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
        • No, that is not merely what we mean by "original research". Encyclopedias are, by definition, tertiary sources. We synopsize the writings of others. Anything you learn by "simply downloading" the game is a primary source. While some elements from primary sources are allowed, they can not be the sole basis for an encyclopedia article. And no, game forums are not independent. They are staffed and populated solely by players of the game. Independent reviews would be, for example, those published by paid staff in magazines with established standards of editorial review, etc. Please go reread the policy again. Rossami (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
          • "Anything you learn by "simply downloading" the game is a primary source." I never claimed that this is not the case. I merely stated the obvious: mentioning that the game exists, the game mechanics, and the game concepts can be verified by downloading it. An actual description of the game can be sourced from other places besides the game website itself or the forums as I mention below Bobet's comments.
            

            And no, game forums are not independent. They are staffed and populated solely by players of the game. Independent reviews would be, for example, those published by paid staff in magazines with established standards of editorial review, etc. Please go reread the policy again.

            I never said that the game forum should be used to review the game. The people in the forums *are* independent from the game creator at least in the sense that the terms that they use about the game is not something the developer rammed down their throats. I am not claiming that this forum should be used to describe the merits of the game but merely the terms that players use.
            • Even if the forums are independent, that are not Wikipedia reliable sources. So you can't beef up the article with info from the forums, either. -- Jreferee t/c 01:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, since there's no new information given that would help in writing a real article. You're looking at the wrong notability guidelines. The one you cite is meant for eg. web comics that have later been signed up by a notable publisher, and doesn't really have any merit when judging games, especially games that aren't web-based (and that isn't the same as multiplayer games played through the Internet). I don't think there's a specific guideline for games, but the basic notability guideline still applies: has any reliable third party written about the game, so that there are some verifiable and neutral sources that an article can be based on? (Rehearsing press releases or the developer's own description of the game doesn't count). Simply existing isn't a good reason to a write an article about something. - Bobet (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "The one you cite is meant for eg. web comics that have later been signed up by a notable publisher" That is your definition, but certainly not the Wikipedia definition. Its definition is: "Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content." This game is distributed solely on the internet through RegNow and other companies, as far as I know.
    The issue here is the existence of the game and enjoyment of it by at least several hundred people, and you would suggest that this is not enough? Should we then go ahead and delete entries of towns where there are less than a few hundred people, simply because they exist, and the small community around them can be completely ignored? Just like any other such game, the reason for this article is to let people know about the game and about its concepts, which have been defined by its community.
    Again, here we go:
    "has any reliable third party written about the game, so that there are some verifiable and neutral sources that an article can be based on"
    "Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with our policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability, web-specific content[3] is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria."
    "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster"
    Therefore, that fits with the definition of what RegNow is, and we can confirm that RegNow can be a source. Since (by Wikipedia standards) we now confirm that Pax Galaxia is an actual game (which we can also test by downloading it for free), we can use that as a basis for factual information about the game, as well as any of the reviews of the game. (which include manifestogames.com, download.com, gametunnel.com, cnet.com, kingdownloads.com, gamedesignreviews.blogspot.com, and pc.ign.com) Since any of the reviewers have not played the game enough to know, we must refer to game concepts, strategies, and terms by examining the forum posts because that is virtually the only place where there is an ongoing discussion of the game. --Agamemnus (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

They still do not meet our creiteria for reliable sources. An absence of information means we don't have an article not that we change our guidelines to allow one.

Source? --Agamemnus (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse until reliable secondary sources are provided. Afd closure was correct; Wikipedia is not a compilation of everything that exists, and if nobody else cares enough to write about a subject, neither should we. —Cryptic 22:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Please provide real world reliable sources if you want to have an article on this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse / Keep Deleted no reliable sources = no article. It's that simple. On a side note, I sincerely doubt a game played by "at least several hundred people" (as the nominator claims) has any serious hope of an article. While it's true that we do not make such decisions based on numbers alone, I've seen articles deleted on games with download counts well into the millions. While the reason for deletion is verifiability, it's also apparent that this simply isn't notable enough for an article and will not be unless circumstances drastically change. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

  Did you read my response to Bobet? Are you claiming multiple review sites have no validity? --Agamemnus (talk)

• Endorse deletion, seems clear-cut - forums are not reliable sources, so that leaves nothing for verifiability or notability, as the closer stated. --Coredesat 07:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Spime (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD1 | AfD2)

Closer over-ruled a substantial keep vote on the rational that "No evidence of any serious usage beyond Sterling's writings and some blogs". He may have a valid opinion (I'd say it's untrue, if you search for it you find all kinds of references, especially in google scholar, and yes I;m aware theres a certain amount of noise there), and I wouldn't question a delete vote based on it, but to overule the debate and close it as a delet on the basis of such an opinion seems like it steps overstepping a line. Artw (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Note - A relevant page: User:Casey Marshall/Spime. -- Jreferee t/c 19:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Note - Spime (theory) related to Dr. George Kayatta's mathematical Spime Factor,[4] not Bruce Sterling. -- Jreferee t/c 21:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse AfD is not a vote, and that may be why the closure seems odd to you. We base closures on the quality of argument and how in line with existing policy it is. In this case the arguments for delete were directly based in policy, and the arguments for keep did not address those concerns. I think it was a valid close. 1 != 2 17:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Ivan Illich, not Bruce Sterling, coined the term "spime". See New York Times 1982 (writing "They live in a different "space-time," which he calls, unfortunately, "spime," because - are you ready? - they can be mothers and the rest of us can't.") No, I'm wrong. Dr. George Kayatta came up with the mathematical revolutionary Spime Factor in 1972.[5]. Actually, Jazz legend Mose Allison totally made up the spime word.[6] No, I'm wrong again. Shankar Narayanan through Spime, Inc. owns the spime trademark. (trademark search). So Bruce Sterling already is behind the eight ball with his 2004 claim that he coined "spime". However, there is some reliable source material (1) August 10, 2004, (2) Missoula Independent. (August 19, 2004) Mose better blues; Legend Allison is loving the life he lives (search Missoula Independent for "spine") (3) Los Angeles Times. (January 29, 2006) When worlds collide. Shaping Things Bruce Sterling Mediaworks Pamphlets/MIT Press: 152 pp., $17.95 paper Book review by Susan Salter Reynolds (search archive); (4) February 1, 2006; (5) March 1, 2006; (6) May 15, 2006; (7) February 27, 2007; (8) March 12, 2007; (9) May 17, 2007; (10) Google books; (11) Google scholar. -- Jreferee t/c 19:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• endorse Based on JReferee's exhaustive work, there might possibly be an article here, though the one deleted isn't it, or a usable start towards it. I'm even in doubt about the validity of the redirect. No objection to someone doing a proper article not based entirely on Stirling. DGG (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox FBI Ten Most Wanted (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|TfD)

Closing admin's reasoning is based upon a false dichotomy. They suggest that since there is no one infobox that can replace this one, it should stay, and that having a fundamentally flawed infobox is better than not having one at all. These arguments were not even raised in the TfD discussion. {{Infobox Criminal}} is more appropriate for convicted criminals (this hasn't been disputed). Fugitives who have not faced trial can use {{Infobox Person}} (or another if more appropriate). In the discussion, no-one addressed the undue weight that the FBI template places on the FBI's allegations. -- Mark Chovain 05:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This seems more of a manual of style issue than a deletion issue. Predominate facts about a person have been used in templates. For example, {{Infobox President}} as seen in the George W. Bush article puts "43rd President of the United States" below his photo. The color scheme and placement of banner text in {{Infobox FBI Ten Most Wanted}} seems to give too much emphasis and conveys tabloid sensationalism, but that should be fixed through a manual of style consensus discussion on the template talk page, not through deletion of the template. -- Jreferee t/c 07:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse: It's a crap infobox but I don't see it being "fundamentally flawed". In the absence of anything else, the closer called the debate correctly. Stifle (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse I agree with prev remark: the infobox is kinda useless, but is based on a real and verifiable definition. `'Míkka>t 19:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. I think I too would prefer a more subdued infobox design, and perhaps even a disclaimer (most wanted posters generally include something along those lines). But it's valid and verifiable, and as noted cannot be subsumed into {{infobox criminal}}. --Dhartung | Talk 01:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment And since the nom asked, I will address his last. The FBI is not "alleging" that someone is a fugitive. It is factually verifiable that these persons have convictions, indictments, or warrants against them, and the whole point is that they should be facing them in a court of law. The allegations are the things that have been used to make the argument for the legal status. The article should, of course, address these in a neutral manner. But being on the Top Ten Most Wanted isn't an allegation, it's a status. --Dhartung | Talk 01:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Closing administrator statement: WP:BLP makes us do funny things sometimes. Had this been almost any other infobox, I would have deleted it as there is a similarly themed and more widely applicable infobox in roughly the same category. ({{infobox criminal}}) However, for the reasons outlined in my closure, this usually satisfactory solution was not tenable. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 20:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Circles (comic book) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Request email of source and usernames of significant contributors (or the entire history list) for attribution purposes. I am not currently contesting the deletion of this article, but I would like to merging Wikipedia's article onto WikiFur, as the deletion suggested it had some substance to it, and ours does not. GreenReaper (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Sent. --Stormie (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Receipt acknowledged. --Stormie (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Request that the edit history of this previously-deleted article be restored. The deletion was based on a view of the notability of the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards which was subsequently reversed. GreenReaper (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Interac (Japan) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I think the discussion in the deletion AFD was flawed, and the decision should be overturned in favour of delete. J (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

in what way? there seems to have been a good deal of irrelevant discussion, but the consensus of the more to-the-point comments seemed to accept the notability. DGG (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

They're not notable, the g-hits alone showed that. J (talk) 03:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

This quote from DDD DDD sums it up best:

"The fact that there is so little information available about a company that does indeed plays such a large role in the education system here in Japan is troubling." J (talk) 03:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute! That was me arguing in favour of not deleting. Initially, I was arguing vigourously in favour of delete. However, over the past few days, my position has changed. Interac IS large here in Japan. I've always known that. And somehow, it seems, the company is able to create white noise around itself. That IS troubling. Very. My quote above was saying just that. To use my quote in favour of a delete is misconstrued. I was unsure as of two days ago. Now, it's an endorse keep. DDD DDD (talk) 08:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse keep. I see nothing in the discussion that indicates any manipulation or other defect. I think the close as keep (rather than no consensus) was also valid. —C.Fred (talk) 05:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - They've been around since 1972 and they are over in Japan, so there likely is reliable source material but in Japanense publications. Keep an eye on the article and if no reliable sources are added by 22 February 2008 (3 months from AfD close), list it again at AfD citing lack of reliable sources. That usually carries a lot more weight the second time at AfD if the first AfD is close such as this one. -- Jreferee t/c 07:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep - there is no indication of any problem with the manner in which the AfD was conducted; discussion went on for quite some time, the article was edited and improved throughout the process, and the debate was closed in a fair and timely manner. This is now the fifth attempt by "J" to delete this article. The user has also unilaterally tampered with the posted AfD results on the article talk page and the AfD discussion page, changing "keep" to "no consensus" with the edit comment "fix the lie". --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• You wrote "This is now the fifth attempt by "J" to delete this article." What Links Here only shows one AfD. Would you please post links to the other four attempts by "J" to delete this article. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 07:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem - here are the links for the deletion attempts (dates based on UT):

• "db-spam" template (13 September 2007)
• 1st "prod" template (13 September 2007)
• 2nd "prod" template (14 October 2007)
• AfD request (16 November 2007)
• Deletion review (23 November 2007)

--Ckatz^chat_spy 07:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse keep - Jreferee....I checked and I think the article had been deleted but was re-created on 12 Sept 2007. I know there had been an article there before...very strange... it's not an article that I normally watch but I will do so now. User:GreenJoe had placed a proposed deletion box on the discussion page here [7] on 13 Sept 2007 a day after the page was re-created. I find User:GreenJoe's modification of the AFD result from keep to no concensus here: [8] extremely problematic and honestly it's the first time I have ever seen a user do so. I feel notability has been established and I already added a reliable source and will continue to do so. Statisticalregression (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)