Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endless Online (3rd 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 Delete, beneath the massive storm of single-purpose accounts lies zero keep votes. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endless Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This has been discussed twice previously (first nomination, second), and I feel that there were several problems with the previous nominations. There are still no independent, reliable sources for this game. While perhaps every sentence needn't be cited, notability needs to be established. And it has not been here, despite a great deal of concern. It fails every applicable criterion. In previous nominations, some claimed that it met WP:WEB criterion 3, which I see no evidence of. While this much concern should've generated some level of sourcing, this has not happened. The article should be deleted as nonnotable. Eyrian 19:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Oh, it has been up for afd before? Oops, I had prod'd it on 9th of May :/ My comment then was: No independent references, no assertion of notability (WP:ATT and WP:Notability). I ran a google search but only came up with the usual user-written review sites like gameogre; no professionally written articles or reviews. Prod was removed by an anonymous user without comment. Marasmusine 20:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, reading wwwwolf's comments on the first AfD concerning the high number of players, I hasten to point out that popularity is not notability. Marasmusine 20:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 20:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per CSD A7 - no assertion of notability is made anywhere in the article in any way, even unsourced. See also {{db-web}}. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 21:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Still has value. Culverin? ^Talk 23:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  How so? Please reference Wikipedia policy or guidelines. --Eyrian 05:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep, it has some references to keep it going, but only to keep it going. Elfin341 00:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Forget it. I checked multiple times and there are no independent references. fails WP:WEB.--Elfin341 00:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Failed to find any reliable secondary sources discussing the subject. JulesH 16:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong, delete - Another article that cannot provide reliable sources to verify any claims of notability. DarkSaber2k 08:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong, keep - Sources have been added. --Anonymous 18:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC) — 66.138.98.89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  They are sources, yes, but not independent or reliable. They do not, therefore, suffice for notability. --Eyrian 00:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree they are very reliable because there coming from a official sticky on the Endless Forums making it approved by the game developers. On another note they come from one of the earliest Endless players with much experience in the game and on the message boards. --Anonymous 19:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC) — 66.138.98.89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• I'll perhaps grant reliable, but they are still not independent. Which is what is required for notability. With no independent sources, the article does not possess the notability required for inclusion. --Eyrian 01:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's hard to find a good independent source for a game in the Alpha Stages. I've edited the article a bit more hopefully more members of the Endless community can help out to fix it so it meets Wikipedia's standards. --Anonymous 21:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC) — 66.138.98.89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Your edits still do not make the subject notable. Please read WP:NOTE to determine what will. If it's hard to find an independent source because so few exist, an article shouldn't exist, either. --Eyrian 02:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no independent sources findable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Whpq (talk • contribs).

• Strong, keepI have been an independant reporter on all things Endless-Online for well over a year with a daily reader base of well over a thousand members. There are at least 4 independant sites that report on Endless-Online regularly and it is referenced on a number of commercial gaming sites. In addition, a simple search with Google yields many credible outside references to this game which ought be considered.Wickedfrost 16:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC) — Wickedfrost (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Care to supply a few links, because my search is just turning up fansites, directory sites and blogs. DarkSaber2k 16:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endless Links Theres plenty of independent sites listed right there. --Anonymous 03:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.138.98.89 (talk • contribs) — 66.138.98.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  So, fan sites, guild sites and personal websites of players? Funny defintion of 'independent' (They are independent of the games creators, but not independent from the game itself). Exactly the same as the un-independent sources I found when I looked. DarkSaber2k 08:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep its a shame these are still being deleted. I still don't agree that they have no place on WP. From what I can gather Endless has been around for years, is popular and is relatively notable as a semi commercial, long established, popular game. One of the worrying trends in all of these deletions is the tendency to discount non commercial sites as sources and only accept commercial sites as 'reliable sources' to be trusted. Some "3rd party" sources include: mmorog.com (a commercial site), gameogre Game of the week. Long established site with knowledge of these things, there's also the obligitory mopgd.com entry and a Gamefaqs page. Clearly notable enough for WP. Bjrobinson 10:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't get your first link (mmorpg.com) to load, and gameogre seems to principally consist of self-published content. I can't get mopgd.com to load, and Gamefaqs is also user-created content. Those simply will not suffice for notability. You should know, notability is not popularity. Those sources you listed are primarily user-generated content, or self-published anyway (being a popular site doesn't mean something is a reliable site). --Eyrian 15:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Additionally, GameOgres Game of the week award is just as unreliable as MPOGDs regular award, since it is voted for by visitors to the site, and most of the games can (and usually do) organise their fans to spam votes in the poll. A quick check on most web games message boards usually reveals a stickied thread dealing with such matters. As for Gamefaqs, what he (Eyrian) said!DarkSaber2k 15:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  WP Guidelines are just that, guidelines, when I first started editing here some years ago, these Notability guidelines were slowly introduced, basically to get rid of blogs and personal webpages, not popular notable things like communities and interesting games. One day perhaps we will go back to that, WP is not a written encyclopaedia and can be as big as we want it to be. You might as well continue deleting the whole category now then, because under current WP:Web only 3-4 of these games will meet such strict criteria. I bet in 5 years time we are putting these all back in. On another note actually i feel you are both wrong about GameOgre. And what about MMORGP?Bjrobinson 16:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, they are guidelines. And a compelling reason must be given as to why they should not be followed. I find the article in question to be low-quality, and a popular target for vandalism. That does not speak to me that an exception should be granted. The fundamental problem with trying to preserve "popular" things is that this means something very different in all cases. I don't think this game is popular. What makes your assertion fundamentally different from mine?

  These notability guidelines aren't derived ex nihilo, anyway. In order to preserve an encyclopedia that is both verifiable and neutral, things must be covered in reliable and independent sources. Reliability ensures verifiability, while independence ensures neutrality. As the sources here are not reliable and independent, they cannot be used to generate a verifiable and neutral article. Which is in violation of Wikipedia's core policies.

  And how am I wrong about GameOgre? --Eyrian 16:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Notability is a guideline, but verfiability is policy, and there just does not seem to be any reliable sources to provide verifiability. -- Whpq 16:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You make the assumption that anyone involved with the game can't be a credible source which means that eye witness testimony as a basis of fact within articles could not possibly be considered. With that reasoning you might as well just erase the section on the holocaust and let the Iranians win. http://endlessreport.xm.com/ may be based on a blog engine but that does not diminish the amount of research I put into the game to write my particular articles. If something is referenced to my site then it has been researched and the information valid.Wickedfrost 21:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC) — Wickedfrost (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete - Lacks multiple credible third-party sources which all articles must be based on. Wickethewok 04:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[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.