Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead Frontier (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 keep. There are many refs here to sources on WP:VG/RS, and I looked at all of them. But there are a few that point to reliable, third-party coverage of the game. Those reviews, coupled with this discussion, lead me to conclude the article should be kept. KrakatoaKatie 21:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Frontier

edit
AfDs for this article:
Dead Frontier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:WEB and WP:V: non-notable browser game with no references based on reliable, third-party published sources. Deleted in May 2009 for the same reasons. I've checked sources using the WikiProject Video games guide to sources (including the WPVG custom Google search) and found nothing but press releases, forum posts, and reviews from unreliable sites. The article was salted due to repeat recreations but was unsalted and recreated today via WP:REFUND (see WP:REFUND#Dead Frontier). Recommend deletion and salting again. Wyatt Riot (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The accusation and renomination for removal is unfounded, since third-party published sources are used, which are reliable and have reliable content. The content and references of the Dead Frontier article surpass several of the MMORPGs placed on Wikipedia, with several years of being stub articles or/and having outdated references. Some examples are as follows:
Therefore, the renomination for deletion based on old content/sources that the Dead Frontier article may had had, has no weight in this matter. Also, recommend undeletion of Dead frontier and redirection to Dead Frontier. --WizTheDoc (talk) 03:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the reliable sources? I've looked and haven't found any. As far as other articles go, feel free to send them through the deletion process. Discussion about other articles really doesn't belong here. Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Articles of similar and related content convey and support the existence of the remaining ones. The sources you are looking for are in the References section (e.g.: [1] and [2]). Regards, --WizTheDoc (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Onrpg isn't a reliable source, and the review itself is poorly-written and amateurish. The same thing goes for ahkong.net, which is an amateur blog written by a guy using a pseudonym. Articles must be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What the previous AfD said is irrelevant, as we are here to assess the current version of the article on its merits. None of the sources given by Tlim7882 is significant coverage, and they don't look to me like reliable sources either. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MMOHut has been found by WikiProject Video games to be a specifically unreliable source. GameSpot is reliable, but there's no real content there, only screenshots. BBPS appears to be a fairly small (and currently defunct) game review blog with no mention of their editorial policies, so we can't really consider them reliable. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I was not using the previous AfD to support my argument but to clarify that it does not seem to have been deleted for exactly the same reason as this AfD suggests. I was not referring to those reviews specifically, but only to show there are numerous third party reviews out there. --Tlim7882 (talk) 11:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The content of the Dead Frontier article was temporarily in my personal page in order to process the request from Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Dead_Frontier, which was accepted by HJ Mitchell having, at that time, one third-party source. This source was not the result of a self-promoted action, since the site is dedicated to independent game development. The game reviews provided by Marasmusine and Tlim7882 were valuable to this matter and appreciated, therefore were promptly included in the references of the article. It is normal that websites try to promote games to their target audience, thus non-formal language is frequently used. However, the British Indie interview, [3] and [4] are not questionable sources, or self-published sources according to Wikipedia:SOURCES#Reliable_sources, since they do not express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Therefore, the suggestion to Keep the article and add more sources with reliable content is welcomed and appreciated. Regards, --WizTheDoc (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that we don't have to delete this article without third-party sources, but we should. In fact, this article shouldn't have been created in the first place without reliable, third-party published sources as it's a requirement of our verification and notability policies. The policies and guidelines you're referencing are more about articles for which there are reliable sources but which happen not to be in the article at the moment. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed your keep vote from your last comment. You've already noted to keep, and placing it multiple times is confusing to closing admins. Additionally the N4G link you provide goes to gamer4eva.com, which has no about us page and seems to be run by a single individual. It has no professionalism nor notability. --Teancum (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The BrightHub article looked promising at first, then I clicked on the author and got their bio. Definitely not someone with experience in the industry (of both gaming and journalism). Worth Playing has been deemed dubiously reliable here. The Gamer's Hell link can be used, but not to establish notability, as it's merely a press release, meaning that a developer/publisher wrote it. BBGsite links to a guide to the game, and not journalistic coverage. Again, maybe this could be used, but not to establish the game's notability - merely to point out some feature of the game (which could be done better with a primary source (I.E. the game's website) once notability is established. The GamerTell article might be a start, though. Staff have to be hired on as described on the parent company's jobs page. If 1-2 other decent articles that are reliable sources pop up, I'll change my vote. Hopefully you'll find more - I'm not opposed to keeping an article when it fits Wikipedia policy. --Teancum (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to Teancum's comments, both N4G and BBGSite have been found to be unreliable by WikiProject Video games. It seems like everything out there is either trivial or a press release on an otherwise reliable site or a lengthy review on an unreliable site, none of which fit our needs. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally the Bio information about an article's author is not available to the reader, therefore you are including a matter that does not concern to this subject. However, since you referred it, in this particular case, despite her age (which should not be relevant for competences assessment, provided the coherence and integrity of the article), the author has written a valid reliable review and her legitimacy is proven by the article itself, which was edited and published by the managing editor and writer of the MMO & MMORPG gaming section of this company. Therefore the expertize factor is not devalued by this, on the contrary, it serves to provide greater value to it. If you are contesting areas of expertize, there is only two known experts in the development of zombie's MMORPGs till this moment, one is the author of Urban Dead and the other is Neil Yates, the author of the game which knowledge you are concerned to nominate for deletion. They are not journalists, which seems there is little chance, or none at all, to publish a full expert article in a mainstream media covering the whole subject. Therefore, according to the Wikipedia policies, [6] and [7] are complying sources that fulfill the requirements and not the needs of particular Wikipedia users. With so many stub and incomplete articles of the same genre, this almost seems a joint attempt to find excuses to delete a relevant article with relevant content, when there are sources complying with the Wikipedia policies, as shown above. The non reliable accusations of articles or authors of entire web-sites that are not in the Wikipedia blacklist are based on your opinions only and not on actual proofs. If those sites get promoted to the blacklist, the source will obviously be invalid, but until then, if the author is identified and the article has relevant and consistent content, they are third-party reliable sources as placed in Wikipedia policies pages. A reminder to the voters in this topic, Wikipedia is not a democracy, the keep/delete/etc. vote system serves only to test for consensus and has no weight to the outcome of the final decision when reliable sources are present in the article. Therefore, since the content is considered notable at the moment, I thank you all for this discussion and kindly request you to withdraw the delete nomination. Regards, --WizTheDoc (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No offense, but the editors who regularly contribute to articles for deletion are very much aware that these aren't votes, but a way to help reach consensus - that being said no one is voting and it comes of as slightly desperate to accuse us as such. Each editor has cited policies or their own rationale for one side or the other. If they were votes, we wouldn't comment after writing delete/redirect/keep. In regards to sourcing, please read WP:Reliable sources which states they must be reliable, published sources, - as Wyatt Riot already pointed out, BBGsite has been deemed unreliable by consensus. --Teancum (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Userfy - A decent written article, but it doesn't display notability. Try to get a few sources from sites that are written by paid professionals. Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate your concern, Teancum, but the material discussed in here does not offend me in any way. However, I am concerned that you interpreted my words as an accusation. I made a reminder to all the voters in this topic, to consider that since two reliable sources are embedded in the article: [8] and [9], the article is now notable, and the consensus to keep the article has been reached (not by previous votes or comments). In response to Blake vote and comment, as Teancum suggested before, I suggest you to please remind yourself of the content of Wikipedia:SOURCES#Reliable_sources and WP:Reliable sources and you will notice that these two sources comply with the requirements and are reliable. Therefore I, once again, thank you all for this discussion and kindly request you to withdraw the delete nomination. Regards, --WizTheDoc (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus has not been reached because you deem it to be so. Consensus is the majority thought in accordance with guidelines. The consensus must be made on the notability and reliability of the references given, which, no offense, is likely to be better suited to those who have had extensive experience in editing Wikipedia and finding reliable sources. --Teancum (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quoting your words: "I just don't see a lot of coverage from established, reliable sources (...) so more would be needed to firmly establish notability (...) I wish the game the best", words that you used as the basis of consensus on this subject. Since at the moment, the sources have been presented and justified, the consensus has been reached. Consensus is an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole, so no person is able to deem a group's opinion or position alone. Using your words above, since the majority thought in accordance with guidelines has been reached, consensus has been reached. Again, the material of this discussion does not offend me in any way, thanks for your concern. Regards, --WizTheDoc (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Bright Hub review is by a self-professed "18 year old Fine Art student" on a commission-based review site. The Helium review is on another commission-based review site and the author appears to write more poetry than anything else. Both are amateur reviews with spelling and grammar mistakes, not the work of professional game journalists you would find from a reliable publication. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wyatt Riot, I remind you that according to Wikipedia:SOURCES#Reliable_sources none of the arguments you exposed now are significant to determine the unreliability or questionability of the sources [10] and [11]. As I explained to Teancum, the age of the authors is not relevant for competences assessment, provided the coherence and integrity of the article. In the Bright Hub case you referred, despite being a student and having a certificate in Fine Art, the author has written a valid reliable review and her legitimacy is proven by the article itself, which was edited and published by the managing editor and writer of the MMO & MMORPG gaming section of this company. May I remind you that even the great mainstream media often produce content with several grammatical errors, and those are often disregarded or unnoticed since the articles are published through what is considered a reliable media. Regards, --WizTheDoc (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPS explains the conditions under which we accept self-published sources. The two authors above lack the prior publishing history we want to see before we accept self-published works, if at all. Marasmusine (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing !vote to Redirect to List of massively multiplayer online role-playing games and list there, citing Rock, Paper, Shotgun. Although I'm still fine with delete if that helps reach concensus. Marasmusine (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources are self-published media, such as books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, that are largely not acceptable as sources, which have nothing to do with the three already embedded sources in the article: [12], [13] and [14]. You may also have noticed from Wikipedia:SPS and Wikipedia:Third_party, Marasmusine, that the lack of prior publishing history is not even mentioned in Wikipedia policies in order to determine the reliability or questionability of the sources. However, since you mentioned and have unfortunately missed all the author's profile pages, which have links to a vast amount of related and non related articles published by themselves (and in some cases edited and co-published by experts in the area), reveal that your comment is deeply unfounded and biased. I am sorry I had to point that out to you and I hope to remind to the voters again that the subject of this discussion was based on the existence of reliable third-party sources, which since they have been established, the voting-commenting system is now obsolete in this discussion. Regards, --WizTheDoc (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Quote: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Brighthub and Helium are self-publications. I could not see evidence of published works in the biographies of McDonald or Wilkins other than more articles on the same sites. I will investigate Gamertell further as it looks promising. Stunned to hear about the obsolescence of the voting system, as I didn't realise we employed one. Marasmusine (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Bright Hub and Helium sources are not self-published sources, since they belong to independent companies having no relation with the company representing Dead Frontier or the game's author. If you, Marasmusine, are asking for more articles of the authors of the respective articles, you can visit Wayne K. Wilkins' profile and Lynda Mc Donald's profile, glad I could be of use. However, note that it is normal that employees publish their articles in the company that gives them employment, but if you are interested in finding articles of their authorship in other websites (not a requirement according to Wikipedia:Third_party), I suggest you to contact them and ask them that directly. I am sure they will gladly inform you with precision. Regarding the voting-commenting system I mentioned, I am glad that I could help you realize that. Regards, --WizTheDoc (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're confusing the term WP:SPS defines Self-published as things where there is no editorial process, I.E. they have published the article themselves (blogs are a good example of this). This doesn't mean they are affiliated in any way with the game or its makers. --Teancum (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again Teancum, regarding WP:SPS, firstly: "Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field", I hope you are not suggesting that the entire Bright Hub and Helium enterprises produce articles without an editorial process associated to them, and they are somehow related to personal web sites or other personal publications, such as blogs. In the Bright Hub article there is a clear distinction at the header indicating that the article was edited and published not by the writer but by the managing editor and writer of the MMO & MMORPG gaming section of this company, as I mentioned before. Secondly, the WP:SPS section also serves to prevent associations between the entity responsible for the subject that concerns the Wikipedia article and the enterprises that publish articles about that entity, i.e., it is a way to prevent that entity to use personal blogs, books or other personal media as references in the Wikipedia article. I thank you for your explanation, but my mind is very clear regarding this subject. Regards, --WizTheDoc (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both Bright Hub and Helium are commission-based article sites, where ultimately anyone can create an account, write an article, and get paid based on how many hits the article gets. Neither site has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" that our verification policy requires. Neither author is a game journalist by any stretch of the imagination. These are exactly the kind of sources that we consider unreliable. Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wyatt Riot, I please ask you to not repeat the same arguments you have exposed before. As I replied to you earlier, they do not justify the questionability and unreliability of the sources according to WP:SPS. I may inform you that other well known websites do not require one to be a game journalist (e.g.: GameSpot) in order to write games' reviews, nor the Wikipedia verification policies. Regards, --WizTheDoc (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see anything wrong with the GamerTell coverage - I didn't know that owned by a publisher. Looking at a few articles the editorial process seems to be in place and working well, too. I'd say it passes WP:RS, and certainly provides significant coverage. Between that and the little coverage on Rock, Paper, Shotgun I'm leaning towards Keep now. I'll nominate GamerTell as a permanent reliable source shortly. --Teancum (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - DF users are discussing the situation here (requires an account). So far the discussion seems quite civil and certainly isn't bringing any ill here - I'm merely logging this in case this AfD ever comes into question. --Teancum (talk) 04:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete - not notable. Mostly self published sources and scant mentionings. Need direct coverage in reliable third party sources to meet the WP:GNG. 74.198.9.141 (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)— 74.198.9.141 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dead_Frontier_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1142186679"