Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astro empires


 * 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,  with no prejudice against recreation after the GameZone review is published. Many of the keep arguments below were either previously invalidated at deletion review, and most of the others either make WP:ATA arguments or weak arguments. I am willing to undelete after the review is published, although from the discussion it appears it might be better to just recreate from scratch. lifebaka++ 13:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Astro empires

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Nonnotable browser-based game. One interview in a Portuguese newspaper doesn't satisfy WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC) The Continuum - Alexa Rank: 107,539 Cthulhu Nation - Alexa Rank: 1,167,208 Dogs of the Seas - Alexa Rank: 160,523 ERepublik - Alexa Rank: 9,668 Forumwarz - Alexa Rank: 73,358 Habbo - Alexa Rank: 138,016 Horse Isle - Alexa Rank: 151,349 Informatist - Alexa Rank: 482,806 KDice - Alexa Rank: 77,993 Kingdom of Loathing - Alexa Rank: 8,783 Jennifer Government: NationStates - Alexa Rank: 14,295 NukeZone - Alexa Rank: 50,284 Orion's Belt - Alexa Rank: 772,595 Planetarion - Alexa Rank: 138,736 DragonSpires - Alexa Rank: 1,425,534 Stellar Crisis - Alexa Rank: 15,729,717 Trade Wars - Alexa Rank: 693,293 Twilight Heroes - Alexa Rank: 173,281 Urban Dead - Alexa Rank: 19,276 X-Wars - Alexa Rank: 35,899 Astro Empires - Alexa Rank: 8,247 Most or all this games have no reference in a major paper media as Astro Empires do. Wikipedia needs to be coherent and unbiased. Xaman79 (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC+1) — User:Xaman79 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Strong Keep This game is more notable than the large majority of browser games in Wikipedia. Please provide arguments why this game is less notable than the following games or withdraw the deletion request:
 * Note Alexa is not a reliable way of gauging site popularity, and in any case popularity of a website is not a bar by which articles are kept or deleted. JuJube (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Then what is a reliable way of gauging websites? In any case then please explain the arguments used to all the games listed in Wikipedia which I described. What do they have more to offer than this game? Coherence is required here. Xaman79 (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC+1)
 * Generally speaking, coverage in independent, third-party sources. WP:NOTE.  This is a real grey area case.  Livitup (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete—WP:OSE is not a vaild argument. Notability not backed up by any sources I could find in quick searches.  World Of Warcraft this one is not.  Show me the citations.  Livitup (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I already provided a link to the interview done by Portugal's MOST READ newspaper on the game developer. Find it here. This should count more than most gaming websites. Here is also a review on a gaming website Review Xaman79 (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC+1)
 * Also, it says on WP:OSE that, and I quote "But such an argument may be perfectly valid if such can be demonstrated in the same way as one might demonstrate justification for an article's creation. It would be ridiculous to consider deleting an article on Yoda or Mace Windu, for instance. If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency. Unfortunately, most deletion discussions are not as clear-cut, but the principles are the same.". Astro Empires is more notable than most multiplayer browser games listed in Wikipedia, it makes no sense that it should be deleted while the others are kept. Again, consistency is the word. Xaman79 (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC+1)
 * Keep. I'm unsatisfied by the suggestion that "One interview in a Portuguese newspaper doesn't satisfy WP:V".  Clearly it does; a newspaper is a reasonable source, and the fact that it's in Portuguese should not count against it on an international site.  I'm also unimpressed with "World of Warcraft this one is not", which I consider disrespectful and sneering. -- However, I consider the article falls below the NPOV standards and should be edited to read less like an advertisement. S Marshall (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's skirting the notability line, but it still needs a lot of cleanup to keep it from looking like an advertisement. Torinir ( Ding my phone   My support calls   E-Support Options  ) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment—Actually, I don't challenge that the Portugese newspaper meets WP:V, but I challenge that the article we are debating meets WP:NOTE. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable."  I question (seriously—I am open to debate on this topic) whether the two sources cited in the article establish notability.  I have been the subject of two newspaper articles, but I'm not notable.  As for my throwaway comment about WoW, it was meant to counter Xaman79's OSE argument.  I apologize if it came across as uncivil.  Livitup (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment-I realise you didn't challenge the WP:V issue; but NawlinWiki did, and I posted in response to him as well as yourself. I think there's a broader debate to be had about notability with browser games, on which Xaman79's Alexa rankings throw a strong light.  But I think the sheer number of users of this particular game should probably be sufficient to establish a presumption in favour of keeping the article.  I do feel it's a very long article given the subject matter and I do feel there's room for discussion on NPOV.S Marshall (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - It's pretty apparent that this article has a lot more relevance than many others on the site that fall under the same "genre." It's a well-known game, it's highly populated, and it's been around for nearly two years now. It's been referenced by both websites and newspaper articles. I don't see how there's any argument against this. Thekithless (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC) — Thekithless (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep but needs clean up. The articles supplied and popularity of the game meet WP:NOTE. The links provided also meets WP:V. I do agree that the article needs to be made more independent and less like an advertisement but we don't shut down notable articles for being in need of some work, we clean them up. Butch-cassidy (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability exists for the article, as other citable sources do offer the game some degree of coverage it seems, which is nothing to sneeze at.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt The two newspaper sources are the same ones brought up in the deletion review in February. Interviews are usfeul for development information but are mostly useless sources for reception - which is where notability is asserted in videogame articles. Developers talking about their game does not equal an unbiased secondary source. The review highlighted shows no signs of being reliable. I would be happy to switch to keep if some reliable reviews are found, but the whack-a-mole article history, canvassing on Astro Empire's forum and rambling irrelevancies regarding WP's inclusion guidelines smacks of pitch-till-you-win. Someoneanother 18:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The number of players registered at AstroEmpires make it notable, let alone the fact that it has received multiple media reviews. In fact, the number of players make a stronger case in my mind than the media reviews (of course, I can't read the articles...).  WP:COMMON tells us how to handle this: the game has 42,965 players worldwide.  If something that 42,965 people know about and do every day doesn't meet notability standards, then the standards are inadequate.  WP:IAR  Who cares how many reviews have appeared on silly gamer sites?  If that's all it takes, then they could solicit their players to contact the sites and demand a review.  They certainly have the numbers to warrant one.  The lack of critical coverage is, in my mind, a failing on the part of game review sites to notice a game that is clearly as popular as any other browser game, not a lack of notability. -Forridean 19:30:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Do not replace SPA tag or arbitration will be sought
 * Just because a large group of people does something, doesn't make it inherently notable. I'm sure that at least 42,965 people in Oregon, Washington, etc walk their dogs in the early hours of the morning, yet mysteriously Dog Walking in the Pacific Northwest (predawn) doesn't exist. The number of people playing the game doesn't act as a substitute for notability requirements. Trusilver  16:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 *  Speedy Delete and Salt — I agree with Someoneanother on the lack of establishment of notability solely from an interview. This has already been shown in the corresponding deletion review that the user so-kindly linked. In addition, it is only mentioned as a reference; it is not even cited anywhere in the article. Now I do not speak Portugese (this is an English Wikipedia, anyway), but I can only speculate that the interview only deals with the development of the game and not with any mention of how the game is being received, critical coverage, etc. Furthermore, none of the articles cited are reliable nor are they verifiable per WP:V. The references are either from the site itself or from the site's forum. This is a textbook failure of establishing any verifiability. And I am not even mentioning that this article is a blatant advertisement (see Astro empires). MuZemike (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Google's translator actually managed a pretty good job, if I believed this article was salvageable I would use both sources to create a development section. The problem is, they both boil down to "the developer said this, the developer said that", there's no pool of development info in there to create a reception section with. Someoneanother 22:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment--Two issues are being conflated here. They are:  1) Does AstroEmpires merit an article of some kind (which has been challenged on grounds of WP:V and WP:NOTE); and 2) If it does, should this be the article (which clearly it should not--it fails the NPOV and Conflict of Interest tests, at least).  Challenges on ground (2) are not reasons to delete the article; they are merely reasons to edit it.  Furthermore, the fact that this article has been deleted for non-notability before does not justify assuming it is not notable now, since the game has clearly grown in the interim.--Of the valid challenges, I personally remain of the opinion that WP:NOTE is satisfied by the number of users, the number of servers and the longevity of the game. On WP:V I would like to see comments by a Portuguese speaker.S Marshall (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Again, if this is the argument used, 90% of the multiplayer browser games listed in Wikipedia should be deleted. If Wikipedia wishes to maintain a coherent and fair policy, they need to add Astro Empires. I haven't seen so far a logical argument why this shouldn't be added when the others were. I agree the article may need some work, but such can only be done if this isn't deleted. Astro Empires is one of the top games of its genre and its notability has been proved already, therefore it should be listed in Wikipedia. Xaman79 (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC+1)
 * And again, you are trying to use the WP:WAX as well as WP:ALLORNOTHING deletion argument pitfalls. The article has needed a complete rewrite every time it has been re-created, but instead, every time, it has been re-written as a blatant advertisement. There has been plenty of chances to write a somewhat-encyclopedic article complete with verifiable, third-party sources establishing its notability; they have all so far been squandered.
 * It has not been proven that the interview establishes notability; in fact, the opposite has been shown by admins in the previous deletion review:
 * The link provided in the request is not a critical article (or "in-depth look"), as would constitute a verifiable secondary source. Rather it consists solely of quotes from the game creators. Aside from these quotes, there is no encyclopedic content nor independent context for notability.
 * this seems too much like trying to get a new game air time in wikipedia
 * The new information is insufficient to overturn a very solid AfD consensus, and the SPA/sock accounts here are far from a good sign.
 * Finally, you claim it's one of the top games in the genre, but no proof. How are we to know or believe that it is? Judging from the repeated attempts at blatant advertising, it all boils down to WP:ITSNOTABLE claims. It is immaterial as to the number of users, servers, etc. are involved in this game; if there is no significant coverage as well as no reliable sources that are independent of the subject that can satisfy the general notability guideline, then it meets the criteria for deletion. MuZemike (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No reliable source? The NUMBER ONE newspaper in Portugal is not a reliable source? What is, a dodgy website? Your arguments are not logical. And what blatant advertising? And if this was the issue, than we wouldn't be having this discussion, instead we would be discussing about improving the article, not delete it. Xaman79 (talk) 09:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC+1)
 * The interview, not the paper itself, is not realiable. I also quote from the article itself: Currently, there are two types of accounts: Upgraded and Free. Players begin their first week of play with an ugraded account and are downgraded to a lower account after this week. These additional features are offered to encourage users to help the game develop and fund its operation. This is no different than informing users that you can buy a license to a piece of shareware instead of keeping the current free version of the software. Finally, how are my arguments not logical? Please explain in detail. MuZemike (talk) 07:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not discussing the interview's content, it's no more than an interview to the game developer about this game. However, the fact that a major newspaper like Correio da Manhã recognized it as notorious enough to be published speaks for itself. You don't get major national newspapers showing interest in browser games everyday. Most games listed here probably never had any newspaper writing about them and I value that more than a gaming website which you can PAY to get a review for your game. We also were contacted for a TV interview, by a Portuguese national television, however the developer refused as he wanted to keep a low profile. Xaman79 (talk) 12:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC+1)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Correio da Manhã article consider the quality of the work there to be junk food news? --Seascic T/C 14:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also don't forget this [interview]. This one is more focused on the game than the developer. This media website is dedicated to the Algarve (where the developer is from) and is the source of news from the Algarve for all major national and international media. Xaman79 (talk) 12:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC+1)
 * Note — Blatant advertising removed (see diff) and article flagged for rescue. However, I still propose that this article be deleted for clearly failing the general notability guideline as well as salted because of its long history of recreation, conflicts of interest, and sock puppetry allegations by admin. MuZemike (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note — Hold the salt. MuZemike (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * Speedy delete and salt. Being both an Astro Empires player and a Wikipedia administrator, I was very cautious about making any position on this AfD. However, after reading all the available material and the past history of this article, I am forced to agree that the article should be deleted and protected to prevent further recreation until such a time comes that it can qualify for inclusion. All the arguments made to support the article seem to fail WP:N, WP:V and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Furthermore, I see no additional information that has been included in this incarnation of the article that wasn't available for the last deletion and subsequent deletion review. As such, I feel that this article qualifes for speedy deletion under G4 criteria. Trusilver  03:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As an administrator then perhaps you can explain the criteria used with the games I listed. Wikipedia can't depend on different criteria used by different people. Claiming that because of those games were accepted is not a valid argument fails by itself. If this article is to be deleted, then all the others need to be reviewed and possibly deleted as well. Try visiting those games and then visit Astro Empires, see which ones are more notorious than this. Xaman79 (talk) 09:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC+1)
 * WP:WAX again. MuZemike (talk) 07:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not a proper reply. I'm not saying add Astro Empires becuase there are other articles about the same game genre in Wikipedia. I'm saying add Astro Empires because LESS notable games have been added and the same criteria should be used in this situation. Otherwise it's incoherent and inconsistent. Now you try WP:OSE, which says and I quote "In general, these deletion debates should focus mainly on the nominated article. In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia.". If you follow one guidelines, you need to follow them all. Xaman79 (talk) 10:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC+1)
 * Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. MuZemike (talk) 08:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a valid argument. We're not talking about a couple of articles here, but the majority of the games listed in the multiplayer browser games. I refuse to believe that only NOW you choose to enforce this criteria. Xaman79 (talk) 10:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC+1)
 * It's a completely valid argument, nobody holds sole responsibility for policing nearly 2.5 million articles and ensuring that they conform to WP's policies and guidelines, if an editor decides to create an article it doesn't get sent to a holding pen and approved, it's listed straight into the encyclopedia. That's the way it works. Nobody is going to go through that list and spend hours trying to locate sources for each since they're not the focus of this discussion, that's why articles are listed separately unless they are shards of the same topic. If they don't demonstrate notability and no sources can be found for them they run the risk of being listed for deletion at any time. Look further up the video game deletion list and you'll notice two more webgames listed. This isn't just being dealt with now, which you know since you commented at the deletion review, articles which are reposted in the same state they were deleted in tend to get noticed and pulled up. Someoneanother 12:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I see you point, but still believe that many of those articles were accepted after reviewed and therefore find grounds for Astro Empires to be accepted in Wikipedia as well. If work on the article is required, is more than acceptable, but it deserves a chance. Xaman79 (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC+1)
 * Those other articles weren't "accepted after reviewed". If they are less deserving as this one for inclusion, then they should be deleted also - so go ahead and propose them. This discussion has had far too much focus on other articles. This article is what we are discussing, and it either passes or fails on its own merits without regard to any other articles that happen to exist. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Facts--Astro Empires exists for over 2 years. Astro Empires has over 40 thousand active players in 5 different universes (inactive accounts are deleted after 15 days). Astro Empires player's are mostly from English speaking countries (USA, UK, Canada and Australia). Astro Empires has a forum with over 16 thousand users with half a million posts (which get pruned from time to time). Astro Empires in ranked 8,271 in Alexa, meaning it’s on the top 10.000 websites in all the world (for comparing, oGame which is probably the top game of the genre has a rank of 4,010). Astro Empires’ main developer (Portuguese) was interviewed by Portugal’s most read newspaper. 20 out of 30 games listed in the List of multiplayer browser games have lower ranking and are less notable than Astro Empires. Astro Empires is the first game of this genre and dimension to have ever been developed by a Portuguese programmer/company. That alone is remarkable--Xaman79 (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC+1)
 * Comment--The actual issues under discussion are WP:NOTE and WP:V and we should concentrate on those. (None of the other objections cited are grounds for deletion, though they are grounds for editing.)  Notability and verifiability are established via significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources.  Therefore the questions are (1) whether a Portuguese national newspaper is a reliable, secondary source, and (2) whether the article cited constitutes significant coverage.--I believe it would be extremely hard to justify saying a Portuguese national newspaper is not a reliable, secondary source.  Portugal is hardly the third world.  On whether the article is significant coverage, all we have are conflicting opinions that won't lead to a resolution.S Marshall (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Suggestion--Because I believe AstroEmpires merits an article on WP:NOTE and WP:V grounds, but the article we presently have is fairly dismal and this is colouring the debate on deletion, I suggest that it be replaced with a stub reading something like: "AstroEmpires is a browser game of space strategy offering free or paid subscriptions. It has over 40,000 subscribers."S Marshall (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree--The article itself needs a cleanup and improvement, so that suggestion is appropriate for the time being. The article has been changed accordingly. Xaman79 (talk) 12:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC+1)


 * Comment In the process of fixing up the refs, I noticed that the newspaper, Correio da Manhã, is associated with junk food news (according to our article, at least, so take that with a grain of salt). I'm not familiar with the paper myself, and don't know where it falls on the legitimate news/tabloid scale.  Pagra shtak  13:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That newspaper is a bit more sensationalist in the news than Público (Portugal) and Jornal de Notícias, yes, but it doesn't qualify on the description of junk food news. Xaman79 (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC+1)


 * Speedy delete and salt This article was already the subject of a [deletion review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_February_4], which makes it qualify for speedy deletion. However, since this has received such a large amount of controversy (albeit mostly from people with a WP:COI, it really should wait the five days. --Seascic T/C 14:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't make false testimonies or assumptions, I may have a WP:COI but please explain why do you consider the other ones here supporting this article to have the same? You're including Wikipedia admins in your accusation. Xaman79 (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC+1)
 * I'm not saying that everybody who's saying keep has a WP:COI. In fact, User:DGG is not connected to this game in any way. I was refering to the large number of single purpose accounts that have made few or other edits independent of astro empires. This has already been brought to the attention of WP:COIN, so I'm sure they will be looking into this matter and taking appropriate action with it. --Seascic T/C 19:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I do think the meatpuppet-flagging in this discussion has been overenthusiastic.--S Marshall (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What large numbers? Only myself and another user that I've noticed have been flagged single purpose, so please explain your statement. Xaman79 (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC+1)


 * COMMENT They keep flagging everyone who votes for 'Keep' as a meat puppet, myself included. I've had my account on Wikipedia for over a year, and I'm still getting these allegations, even though I have absolutely no vested interest in this article or the game whatsoever.  The fact that I have not contributed a great deal to the site is not evidence of any COI or SPA, nor does it render my opinion less valuable than people who have contributed more.  When I became aware of this issue, I decided to comment on it, and that is granted as my right by the principles of this site.

What I think we're seeing here is less valid arguments and more people wallowing in the ecstasies of bureaucracy, and even more shameful, attempting to use Wikipedia processes as ammunition to bolster their view point. You've stated your case, it is not your place or your job to attempt to assassinate the character of those who disagree. This ceased to be a DISCUSSION (which it is supposed to be) and became a crusade for several of the people here, and that's really too bad. If anyone's behavior during this process calls in to question WP:COI, it's the people who are venomously attacking those who feel that this article is notable. WP:AGF was dead out of the gates. forridean 21:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For purposes of debate, you are a single purpose account. You have made a few edits to the talk pages of Geisha and Juggalo. Also, you made one edit to Geisha back in September 2007. You haven't been active on Wikipedia in 10 months, then you just randomly start back up again with this AfD? It's incredibly suspicious. WP:SPA classifies making one edit to an article (other than a talk page, and other than your user page) before this to be a single purpose account. I'd like to restate that not everybody who says keep is a sock/meatpuppet. User:DGG said that this article should stay and I didn't go accusing him at all. But keep in mind that he's edited more than just one or two articles with his account. Stop trying to play the victim here, and instead try to form a strong argument that will keep this article from being deleted. --Seascic T/C 00:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again, it is not your place or your job to attempt to impinge the character of the people commenting on AfD. I posted my thoughts, they are outlined above.  Agree with them, or disagree with them, bandying about accusations in your manner is ad hominem at it's finest.  I read through the page and you are persistant in behaving in this manner with other users.  Stop.  This is not how you debate, by attacking the character of those who oppose you.  This is not an election.  Your activities are not a contribution to civil and rational discussion, and there is absolutely no way that you can contend otherwise. Forridean 02:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * They have the   template for a reason. You taking it down shows that you are trying to cover up something that others have the right to see.

--Seascic T/C 03:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Take it to talk pages, this is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I am removing it because it is a false accusation being used as ad hominem in an otherwise civil discussion.  You are acting immaturely.  As I have already indicated on your talk page, I also insist here that you cease making these allegations.


 * Keep For games of this sort, sufficient popularity is notability, as long as an article can be written, and the interviews are sufficient for that. DGG (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're entitled to your opinion, but Notability and Neutral point of view disagree with you. If we write an article built entirely on interviews with the interested parties, how could it possibly be NPOV?  Pagra shtak  19:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note — Article and discussion have been brought to the attention at WP:COIN. MuZemike (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note — Dispute resolution via editor assistance has been requested. MuZemike (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep News articles meet WP:N, but writing an article from them might be hard. A quick web search shows that there is plenty of interest in this game AND there are plenty of reviews and user comments to write a decent article. But I'm having a hard time finding much that isn't self published other than the two news stories.  That said, primary sources can be used to describe the game.  This genre just lacks a "reliable" review source which makes things tricky.  Oh, and the Alexa rank also strongly hints at notability.  Hobit (talk) 00:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. This article needs a lot of work as it is barely a stub. I'm not familiar enough with massively multiplayer games, etc to know which ones are notable enough but have no problem whatsoever believing that traditional media sources pretty much don't cover these arenas well. I would expect that this would be discussed in gaming communities and online blogs which are generally disparaged as sources. I think this is a good example of a subject that will have to be written with new media sourcing until, and if, traditional media also decides this content is valuable to it's paying customers. I'm also alarmed by "delete and salt" votes as if this could never become notable. As nom has pointed out that seems more likely than not. I encourage some thoughtful expansion as, unfortunately, AfD, although should be about what an article can become is too often based on what people think of the subject and what state the article is currently in. I'm also swayed by 42,000+ players, even if a subject has absolutely no interest to me, there's no reason my disinterest should keep others from learning about it. Banj e  b oi   01:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason salting has been suggested is because this article has been created, deleted, recreated, redeleted, etc several times. There was even a deletion review for it where it was salted, and then creator has to make this article without the E capitalised to get around it. Salting an article doesn't prevent creation permanently. It prevents people from creating the same article that has been deleted numerous times in the past. They still have the option of having an administrator allow the creation of the article at such a time in the future when the material is suitable to become an article. Until then, salting prevents the same problems that are occuring now. --Seascic T/C 02:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This user reflects the essence of my own opinion. If 42,000 people worldwide are aware of a website, that is notablility by definition.  IAR, I say, if this doesn't meet notability guildelines, then the guidelines need to be revised. Forridean 02:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Seacic--I believe you are using lies and irrelevant arguments to try and uphold your own opinion. As far as I'm aware, only ONCE was an article about the game created, which was then deleted, in February. It's only natural, that since we didn't agree with that decision, and since editors are not perfect therefore can make mistakes, along with the fact that after 6 months the game has grown even more, I decided to recreate it for review, something anyone else would find perfectly natural and not use it as an argument for this discussion. If there were other atempts to create this article, which were deleted as you say, please provide proof so I can check it for myself. Thank you. Xaman79 (talk) 09:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC+1)
 * Log page for Astro Empires. It shows that the article has been deleted a total of six times. MuZemike (talk) 07:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment What it shows is that articles with this title have been deleted six times. Which leads me to ask whether the content was the same on each occasion?--S Marshall (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Exactly. Is it possible to actually see the content on those deleted articles? Also, this proves that there is a very high interest from people to have this game added to Wikipedia. Xaman79 (talk) 10:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC+1)


 * Comment I would like to point out the fact that User:Forridean is a single purpose account. I keep tagging his/her first comment on the page, yet he/she keeps taking it down. Their claim is that they are not a SPA because they have had their account for almost a full year. Please keep in mind when looking at their entries that they have only edited one article on Wikipedia, and about three other talk pages before coming into this debate. Now they are threatening to take me to arbitration for mentioning this. This furthers evidence that they are a sock puppet of another user. --Seascic T/C 03:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Retort I would like to point out that you continue to attempt to call in to question my veractiy by slandering me in a blatant display of ad hominem, despite my attempts to talk it over with you. It is not appropriate for AfD debate, nor any interaction with a user.  I've said my peice, if you don't stop, we're going to arbitration.  Why to arbitration?  Your words:  "and your blocking for violation of WP:3RR".  You aren't trying to talk to me, you aren't trying to resolve anything, you're trying to bully me under the assumption that I won't know any better.  Well, I do.  So stop. Forridean 03:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forridean (talk • contribs)
 * No, the next step for dispute resolution is a request for comment; if you know better, then you should know that. Skipping steps will only get you reprimanded for doing so. MuZemike (talk) 06:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment--I feel both sides are falling foul of WP:AGF in this dispute. Forridean was a pre-existing account and had made other edits prior to commenting here, and he deleted the spa tag quite politely the first time.  Calling someone a meatpuppet is insulting and I feel Seascic should have not replaced the spa tag when it was deleted.  And I sympathise with Forridean's ire, having been called a meatpuppet myself in this debate!  It's very annoying when someone on the other side of the debate attempts to have your opinion discounted.--But equally, I feel Forridean may have overreacted.  It would have been politer to assume Seascic's actions were not motivated by personal hostility towards Forridean, but by a genuine if misplaced feeling that Forridean really was a sockpuppet.--I feel the dispute resolution process has been invoked unnecessarily, and I hope both parties will have the maturity to take a little while to calm down, and then consider whether it might not be appropriate to apologise to the other.--S Marshall (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * Note — A request for comment has been made regarding this discussion due to the lack of expediency of WP:COIN and editor assistance. MuZemike (talk) 06:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note — A third opinion has been requested as to the recent WP:SPA accusation. MuZemike (talk) 07:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC
 * Comment - SPA was appropriate for Forridean. -- eric (mailbox)  13:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment As a participant at WP:3O I have removed the third opinion request because the closing admin will properly decide the weight of the !vote and whether or not the commentor is a SPA. A 3O would be inappropriate in this case. Jim Miller (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, it has independent review. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC) 15:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC) fix
 * Source concern Three more references have been added, but I have concerns about their reliability. World Online Games doesn't appear to have a privacy policy, or any of the other legal bits I'd expect to find on a well-established site. Their contact page is one email address. I don't see any indication of fact-checking or submission review. Next we have "Gordaen’s Blog"—emphasis on blog. Is the author acknowledged as an expert in the field? Is he cited by news organizations or other reliable sources? Lastly, xigre.com says on the front page, "...place for you to post link to your site or just to find what you need about some specific game. If you are a blogger or a website owner and you have a website or blog which can fit into any available category, feel free to add it..." This doesn't sound like a reliable source to me either. Can anyone show us why these meet the requirements of Reliable sources?  Pagra shtak  16:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Update—I've removed the sources due to agreement below that they are not reliable.  Pagra  shtak  18:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Opinion--They're marginally reliable if at all. Their inclusion is justified, though, when the main reliable source is in a foreign language.--S Marshall (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, unreliable sources should not be used, no matter what language.  Pagra shtak  18:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * They're not remotely reliable and are the kind of sources which are removed during improvement processes. The blog is just a personal blog, of no more use than a GameFAQs review. World Online Games is one of countless MMO funnel-sites which list links to MMOs and push advertising, all reviews in the side panel are by this Jamie Baker, the webmaster? There's no indication of reliability (in our terms). Xigre is user-generated web directory and again the submissions carry as much weight as Average Joe's blog, IE none. Someoneanother 18:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Query--Please could either of you cite any source you consider reliable for browser games?--S Marshall (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, significant coverage by any of the following would work, for example: BBC News, the Associated Press , The Chicago Tribune , The Wall Street Journal —this is just a short list, but are some good examples of reliable sources.  Pagra shtak  18:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Jay Is Games (note references on talk page), Rock Paper Shotgun, meryl.net (Meryl K. Evans' blog) - notice this is a published author and writer in the computing sector, this is the kind of blog you'd be looking for rather than the one stipulated above. Eurogamer has a news item about KoL here and an article on four MMOs here, note that three out of four of the games are in the list at the top of this discussion. Other reliable sites and magazines randomly cover retro/indie/MMO/casual games. There is no GameSpot equivalent so it's a case of trawling google as opposed to finding 'the right site' and trawling that. Someoneanother 18:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, then: I concede that those extra three references aren't reliable. Unless someone more knowledgeable than me can show otherwise, I agree they should be deleted and we should return to the first two sources cited. I do think it's unfortunate that the only sources permissible to the deletionists are in Portuguese, which is a bit of an obstacle to discussion.--S Marshall (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC).--Oh, I see they've already been deleted.
 * You mean the only sources permissible to Wikipedia. Verifiability (which requires a reliable source) is core policy and applies regardless of one's individual stance on notability. Let's not cloud the issue with partisan labels.  Pagra shtak  19:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you view it as a pejorative to describe you as a "deletionist" in the context of this article, then I apologise. I assure you I didn't intend it as a pejorative, and I'd be quite happy to be characterised as an "inclusionist" in the context of this debate.--I am an AE player, though I don't view that as a COI since I'm not financially involved in the business and have nothing to gain from promoting it.--S Marshall (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't take it as a pejorative, although I find it inaccurate in my case—don't you think a true deletionist would have...actually said delete? I just want to make sure that if the article is kept, it is done so on reliable sources and not personal blogs. My real problem is that those labels set up an "us vs. them" mentality that splits editors into one of two camps and stifles true discussion. As you can see, you're already trying to assign me a camp into which I do not belong. My point is, whether you describe yourself as an "inclusionist" or "deletionist", that shouldn't affect your standards for reliable sources.  Pagra shtak  00:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * On re-reading, I see that you haven't chosen to express a clear view on whether this article should be deleted. Do you have a contribution to make there, at all?--S Marshall (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I typically don't say one way or the other unless I search for sources myself, which I don't have the time or inclination to do right now. I do have time to question unreliable sources, however.  Pagra shtak  13:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree with the removal of the review on the World Online Games. Most sites of the kind don't have any phone numbers or addresses on their webpages, but it doesn't make it any less reliable and it's a website dedicated to online games, mostly browser games, which is the genre of Astro Empires. Xaman79 (talk) 12:37, 01 August 2008 (UTC+1)
 * Then please show us why the source is reliable. You can say it all you want, but you need to back it up with something. Here are some quotes from Reliable sources, which every good Wikipedia editor should read: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process" Now, can you show us why you believe World Online Games has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Does it have a reliable publication process?  Pagra shtak  13:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a review. While the publisher doesn't let us know his publication process (does the NYT on its website?), is there some reason to doubt this one?  "trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." is what matters.  If someone cited a source like this for a claim about Hitler, I'd strike it in a second.  But for the subject at hand I have no problems with the source (which is why I added it to begin with).  It goes to notability as a non self-published source. Hobit (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So then I can set up a personal website, review any game I wish, and give it instant notability? I think not. You're absolutely correct about "trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Show me a reliable source that considers WOG as trustworthy or authoritative and I'll have no problem with it.  Pagra shtak  15:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is growing increasingly irrelevant to the question of whether this article should be deleted. If there were no references that met WP:V then this discussion would matter, but there are.  Would you consider continuing this on your own talk pages?--S Marshall (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Query - Would you consider GameZone to be a reliable source? They are working on a review of Astro Empires as we speak. Hopefully they will publish it before this article is deleted. Xaman79 (talk) 21:34, 01 August 2008 (UTC+1)
 * Yes, it is, according to WP:VG/S. Hopefully, they do churn one out before then. (Not necessarily playing devil's advocate - just want to see some closure on this.) MuZemike (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That'll be great. Even if the article is deleted in the mean time, it can easily be undeleted once the source exists. I don't think you'd even have to take it to deletion review, you should just be able to show the review to the closing admin and have it undeleted without any fuss.  Pagra shtak  21:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Suggestion - How about we slow the train down a little?  Considering that there are two sources already, there is potential for an encyclopedic article here. The article can just as easily left in place as deleted.  How about we give this AfD closure, and start fixing up the entry?  But, with the caveat: if the alleged GameZone article doesn't appear in a timely manner, then we will be right back at an AfD, armed with an agreement that the article will be deleted until better sources are available. This will allow us to reach consensus and foreshorten this current bureaucratic process right now.  Additionally, with having reached this prior agreement, should we end up here in the future if the source doesn't come through the process will be hastened in that round as well.  Save us all some time now and possibly later.  --  Forridean  (T/C) 02:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No reason to. Articles are easy enough to resurrect after deletion. Should notable sources come to light after this AfD that would have changed the outcome, I would have no issue at all of backing a recreation of the article. That being said, I have long since lost count of the number of AfD discussions I have been in where "notable sources are coming! just wait a little longer!" And in only two cases do I ever remember those sources actually materializing afterwards. In the meantime, I continue to hold the same position - this article has not changed appreciably since the last time it was deleted. Trusilver  08:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Once AfD is rolling there are few reasons to not let the process continue, especially with so much input. Banj e  b oi   06:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but closer should perhaps add a note saying "no prejudice against recreation if additional RS review found" just to avoid DRV/speedy issues about article recreation. (assuming closer deletes and feels that's the right thing) Hobit (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That is always assumed anyway. The most banal articles ever deleted are (or at least should be) given the right to be recreated should notable sources for them become available. Trusilver  23:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but then someone comes along and speedies it because it's an article that is largely the same as a deleted one. Then it goes to DRV.  Best to be clear. Hobit (talk) 00:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hold the salt — just in case this article is deleted, and I didn't make it clear earlier since this has been a rather long discussion.) MuZemike (talk) 05:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Astro Empires has been added to GameZone (here), the review should be done soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaman79 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 5 August 2008 (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.