Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Achaea, Dreams of Divine Lands


 * 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 trending towards keep, as I'm reading it (though I've been wrong, before). Perhaps give it some time and see if things improve in the article. Luna Santin 22:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Achaea, Dreams of Divine Lands

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

No sources to indicate notability, no indication of signifigant third party coverage, no inidcation that it meets the criteria for inclusion of websites. brenneman 00:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The fact that it has won awards shows it's notablity in my eyes. The article could use some other sources rather than just the main site, perhaps some of the many Google hits it gets?  Gan  fon  00:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have made that more clear: If there is documentation that demonstrates it has won a notable award, it satisfies the guideline. I may be missing something obvious, but I did not see such documentation. -  brenneman  01:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Gamesdex.com Game Review - Not sure if this counts. Mkdw talk 03:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The link for awards simply points to user praise. Not nearly good enough.  Fails WP:WEB. Resolute 03:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - the publisher is a notable company. A Google test for the exact phrase "Achaea, Dreams of Divine Lands" results in 33,800 search results. Until direct criteria can specify why this article should be delete, it meets notability. Mkdw talk 03:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that a search designed to emilinate Wikipedia mirrors returns only 111 unique results. Not that that means anything anyway, as the h"Google test" for notability has been rejected mroe times than I've had hot dinners. -  brenneman  03:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If Google returns more than 1,000 hits, the distinct Google hits are only the distinct hits from the first 1,000 pages. So it is more or less useless to use "distinct pages" as a measure for any result with significantly more than 1,000 pages (like this one), and therefor should be discounted (This and the underexposure of historical figires and facts on the Internet are the only reasons I know of to discount Google as an indicator of notability: for all other items, it is a valuable indicator of notability, which of course is inferior to actual sources). Fram 13:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, the "Reference" is nothing but a page of fan testamonials. Unless someone comes up with real sources, this appears to be non-notable and full of claims that are unverifiable.- Dmz5  *Edits**Talk* 05:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've done some cleanup (although the "Concept" section needs revision) and provided references beyond just a company testimonials page.  I've had to rely on the company's site for the John Romero quote, although the RPG Planet review and two articles from Wired are certainly independant.  Pretty sure there's more out there, I've never played but remember reading quite a bit about this game.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 05:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sourcing now includes a Computer Gaming World article, a nod from an IGDA white paper, in addition to the Wired articles (including the use of Achaea's engine at a conference with substantial UN involvement). I feel fairly secure in saying that WP:N should no longer be at issue. Serpent&#39;s Choice 09:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I lie awake at night and dream about deletion discussions like this one. I'm quite satisfied and would ask that everyone who reads this strolls by Serpent's('s?) talk page to give a pat on the back. -  brenneman  11:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable. The only review is that of RPG-Planet and on its own it is not enough to prove notability. Even more so, the review is everything but objective and has the appearance of being written by the fan. Quoting: "For instance, after the PlayStation2 came out, I obviously had to own one, and couldn't spend any money in Achaea for a couple months.". Reviewers don't operate in this fashion. In addition to that, Mr. Reves is neither listed as a staff member nor does he address any controversial issues of the game apart from saying that they exist. It's a praise, not a review. The other sources simply don't mention the game as a central subject nor address it in any way other than existing. Still no evidence of the awards provided. Non-Notable.MaxGrin 11:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll admit that I haven't found evidence of an "award" (although the company nebulously claims it has done so), but I'm afraid I do not understand the criteria you are trying to fulfull. The Terdiman article in Wired and the CGW article are both demonstrably about the game -- or, rather, about an item introduced to the game, which would seem to be splitting hairs to differentiate.  Also, I might argue that the use of the Achaea engine for the medium of communication of a conference involving UN dignitaries would be sufficient under WP:N regardless of other concerns.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 11:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say that the discussion about the item is rather about the phenomenom that was observed while doing so, rather than about the game in which it was introduced. Similarly, if a rock band in a small town would run around and slaughter bystanders, the phenomenom would be notable, yet not the participants, i.e. we would not be interested in the biographies in an encyclopedia. Also, the reference made is to the engine, not to the game itself, making it a rather weak link. Feel free to disagree, but that how I see it.MaxGrin 11:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, out of pure interest, where did you dig up that Computer Gaming World quote?MaxGrin 12:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * At some point, CGW made a giant database of all their articles publically available, and I grabbed it. The link to it that I used back then seems to have died, but, happily, I now find that a 3rd party site has mirrored at least some of the article text.  That one, in particular, is here.  I believe there's also an interview with the Achaea designer in another issue; I'll try to scrounge that up shortly.
 * In any case, I'm not sure your analogy is ideal here. Jokes about the addictive nature of MMOGs are pervasive, but Achaea had the gall/insight to actually introduce an in-game substance that got characters (rather than players!) addicted.  If nothing else, its novel.  I'll probably agree to disagree on the importance of the engine use as regards the game itself, although I'll point out that the Quake article discusses the uses of the Quake engine for other games (it never hosted a conference ... I don't think).
 * Regardless, I'll try to find some more content. I'll admit that the article as it stands is still poor.  I just think is keep-able.  There are a lot more negative comments from reviewers to be had, but they are often in comparison to other games, in those games' reviews (Foo-game gets my recommendation, because, unlike Achaea, it does bar).  I didn't include such sources because they don't advance notability for AFD (although they will be important to present a comprehensive and NPOV article if it survives this process). Serpent&#39;s Choice 12:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice link, thank you. On the matter of engine, Quakes engines have been used in a good score of games, making it very special, however it is only a side note as Quake itself is notable. I completely agree that shall the artcle remain, the engine bit should be a part of it. Would be nice seeing the UN directives chat with Quake running in background though.:P
 * Anyway, Achaea has quite a number of curiosities about it, such as the Gleam story, however the AfD states that "that's an interesting article" is not a criterea. The way it stands now, it is objectively speaking non-notable.
 * PS: This is terribly weird, but after about a 30 minute search in google(one sees that sometimes I get really bored), I didn't even find a hint on Achaea winning any awards other than their homepage. This is off-topic, but why on earth are they so well hidden? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maxgrin (talk • contribs) 12:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
 * It may be testament to the need to retune the notability guidelines in general that we can both read WP:N and WP:SOFTWARE and reach diametrically opposed opinions based on the material at hand. In any case, unless I can figure out what award they think they've won (I can't find it either... /boggle), I'll let this stand on its merits and see what consensus looks like.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 12:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * On the matter of awards, where does it say that they won away awards anyway except the former Wikipedia article? I can't find on either of their official pages...(is probably blind)MaxGrin 13:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

(dropping indent) Not many places. This page on the official site doesn't say that, but its meta content is "The website for the award-winning game Achaea, Dreams of Divine Lands". There are a few other sites that seem to have parroted that line independant of Achaea's official site, but I'm not certain. They've also noted a couple of reviews I can't find, such as a "#1 MUD" from gamers.com and a 5/5 rating from mpog.com that I'm having trouble finding due to their age. Mpog.com has been bought since the review was probably written; archives were not preserved. I'll have to hit up Wayback. Not sure on the gamers.com reference right now. Serpent&#39;s Choice 13:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I need to catch at least a little sleep, so I'll have to come back to this later. However, I found a Wayback archive of the MPOG reviews - there were two, which seem legitimate (and more ... shall we say, "professional" review than RPG-Planet's.  See the wonder of the Internet Archive here and here.  The gamers.com review is lost to history, as it was buried too deep in the structure of the short-lived format the site had in 2000 (PC -> Role-playing -> Online) to be indexed by the Archive's crawler. Serpent&#39;s Choice 15:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete MUDs (and similar) are generally deleted, and the one thing that supposedly raises this one above the pack, the "awards", don't seem to be substantiated. If anyone can find verifiable, reliable sources for these awards, and if they are indeed notable awards to begin with, that may be something to consider.  Otherwise it's apparently just something else the dog gulped down while it was munching on homework. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per 2 references in Wired. Edison 20:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Individual MUD articles are, far more often than not, unable to meet the policy requirements as described in WP:WEB that can warrant their permanent addition to Wikipedia's pages. From what I've seen and read this article only substantiates this further, as in being one of the few to have actually brought forth some sources, those same sources quickly reveal themselves to be replete with bought reviews, biased fan testamonies and the like.  Articles on specific MUDs in general are best deleted under the current guidelines.  I've seen no valid arguments as to why this one should be an exeption to this. Adblock59 20:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - the ref in Wired and Computer Gaming World suggest it's got somewhat "mainstream" coverage for its activities, and sticking around for nearly ten years seems to help it along. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A MUD article of a virtually identical content to this one was deleted very recently, which described a free-to-play MUD that had been in continued operation for almost 4 years longer than this one has. I don't see how this is an argument in favor of keeping this article. 84.192.125.204 22:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Did that one have non-trivial coverage in reliable sources? Tony Fox (arf!) 06:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would dare say it did at least when compared directly to this disputed article, as I re-wrote that now deleted article myself in late 2006 with the specific purpose of fixing the problems which had the original version deleted under consensus back in 2005. (Rightfully so by the way, hence my initiative to attempt to make the content acceptable to Wikipedia standards.)  The great irony is that I actually based the structure of that re-written article heavily on this very Achaea article, as since this article was not being considered for deletion, they apparently seemed to be doing something 'right'.  And yet that very same 'something right' certainly wasn't its reliable sources provided, as this debate seems to be making increasingly clear. The aforementioned deleted article didn't have any notable differences in content to this Achaea article, apart from the former having a more detailed gameplay section, and neither article provided valid sources to establish its notability.  Both were essentially in the same situation, yet one was deleted and the other was not. I thus am left with the distinct perception that a double-standard seems to be in effect at this point in time.  I can very easily provide my deleted article with the precise same type of sources as this Achaea article has done with itself, yet that would simply not be ethical on my part, as they would not be valid under Wikipedia's guidelines to begin with.  Logically, the same standards should thus apply to this article.  Given the near identical situation of these two articles with regards to both content and validity, they either should both go, or both be restored. 84.192.125.204 09:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with a previously deleted article, deletion review is --> thataway. This isn't the place to argue it, as each article is considered on its own merits, not by saying "This one was kept, therefore this other one should be." Here, I see two major publications that have covered this topic specifically, establishing notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Maybe I just don't know enough about MUDs, but this seems to me to be notable as a somewhat popular computer game. JCO312 21:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've made a 2nd pass through the article with an eye toward improved sourcing, again. At least for now, I've removed the RPG Planet review over concerns that it was inappropriately hagiographic.  However, the article now cites its review on The Screen Savers, as well as substantial coverage in Richard Bartle's most recognized book on multiplayer online gaming.  I've located a couple of additional criticism sources in an effort to ensure the article adequately reflects all available opinions, have brought the text more in line with the manual of style, and have found quite a bit of further discussion regarding the payment system, especially from IGDA.  At least to my eyes, the WP:SOFTWARE proposal requirements are more than satisfied.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 19:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, I think if we really want to keep this article we at least need to refine the sources. Now you did a great job of finding them, but we really need to sort them out a little. Right now it's a puddle of mud. Even more so, I think we should make an exception here and add the links to the forums from the previous version. Since Achaea is not very famous, we won't get any of this feedback from independent press and in my eyes, we're missing a big point about the revenue system by leaving out those entries.MaxGrin 09:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's simply the hour here, but I'm not sure what you're suggesting needs to happen regarding "sorting out" the references. Regarding the forum links from a few versions back ... most of that appears to be standard MMOG "how dare they make me play!" forum banter.  On the other hand, linking to a forum discussion regarding the autoclass changes might be prudent, since it won't be covered in a better source, and directly impacts the roleplaying environment that the positive sources spend so much time lauding.  I'll see what I can conjure up.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 10:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * comment for keeping This is my personal point of view, but if we decide to delete this then what will be next? I realize that there are extensive rules, regulations, and preconceived notions of what should and shouldn't be on wikipedia, but i also think that it is or should be more accepting. But i digress. For this article i call into light such others as the article on D&D, Zelda, and other games of such note. True, this particular game is not as well known, but if has been around for so long, and has so many participants in so many places, then it meets my notability requirements. I also feel that if wikipedia is such a "comunity oriented" excersize then we should be allowed to have articles about other communities. Achaea is a community, much like Gaia and some other games of note. If you need it to be more suit-and-tie, isn't it owned/run by the Iron Realms? Surely they are notable enough. At most we should smerge this with any wiki on Iron Realms. I believe that Achaea is stand-alone enough to reside in wiki's hallowed halls. 64.251.57.196 13:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Rhunsulrana
 * keep -- Achaea is the most popular MUD today (according to topmudsites.com), and for that reason alone should be on here. It has a large player base and is one of the few remaining examples of quality text-based roleplaying games. I agree the article should be improved, but deletion is not warranted. - John Nowak


 * 'comment' Category:MU* games lists a great many Muds. If almost all MUDS are not notable enough, Is shouldn't this whole category be up for deletion as well. I mean If we keep the top5 most notable, a whole category of it's games would be a little redundant. Martijn Hoekstra 21:42, 23 January 2007 (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.