Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social interaction in MMORPGs (2nd 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 keep. Cirt (talk) 07:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social interaction in MMORPGs

I have attempted to cleanup the article, ~~however it seems most of it may be plagarism from a variety of sources.~~ I removed a section entiled "Bibliography" because it was a copy and paste of executive summaries from articles. ~~There are many quotes, and language which appears without citations.~~ About 90% of the article was created in 1 edit, I think it might an assignment for a class. ~~I am not sure if ALL the article is plagiarized because a few of the sources require an account to view. However a few sections, for example the "Anonymity" part, is plagiarized from Lisa Nakamura.~~ Not sure how much is worth saving, but ~~the 'History section' if original~~ should be merged to the relevant article. Fixed, 28 August 2025

Article was nominated for AFD before -- $user log ^(Talk) @ 01:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. Stifle (talk) 12:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC) Weak keep as improved. Stifle (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like an essay, and bad one too. The references aren't about the main topic, and despite the previous AfD, I don't see a significant improvement since the initial version (besides some formatting). If it's not plagiarized, then it's definitely WP:OR. If the source(s) of the plagiarism can be identified, the articles should be rewritten, but in user space. We cannot allow copyvios to stand in article space for months. VG ☎ 15:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep, please keep for a few days rather than speedy, to give me a chance to clean it up.:) There are a lot of refs, some academic, mentioned. I think it could be worth its own article. Sticky Parkin 21:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to copyvio. Certainly, making a new article on the subject is reasonable, but we cannot keep copyvio. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done, somewhat rewritten and problematic content removed- all checked for copyvio etc and I don't think any remains. In fact I think the charts etc which were from a blog, were from a blog by the article's creator himself- the epitome of WP:OR. So not really plagiarism as it was all his own work:) Anyway, all fixed now and it only remains to improve the article even more:) It looks a bit bare for having had stuff removed, but should soon be ok. Sticky Parkin 00:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as improved (and sourced for that matter). Hobit (talk) 02:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Sticky Parkin's work. -- Banjeboi 00:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment note that the nominator wishes to withdraw his nom, but like most of us, doesn't know how:) [1] Sticky Parkin 00:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY (I've always wanted to have a chance to cite that essay...). References have been provided, and the concerns about original research seem to have been addressed; while there will always be room for expansion and/or cleanup, this article as it is meets all our inclusion guidelines. Terraxos (talk) 01:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely worth keeping as it meets our core standards, but you may want to consider merging this to Massively_multiplayer_online_role-playing_game#Social_Interaction just as a matter of organization. It would certainly fit nicely, and meet our WP:SIZE guidelines. Randomran (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's better addressed as a separate article and gone into in more depth, as there've been hundreds of scholarly studies, [2] news stories, [3] and books [4] that mention it or are about it. It just remains for people to invest some time working on it. I really should get round to it, not that I've ever played a self-confessed MMORPG, but I've heard wikipedia is a MMORPG.:) Sticky Parkin 03:34, 28 October 2008 (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.