Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caesary


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Caesary

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Fails WP:WEB and WP:V: non-notable browser game with no references based on reliable, third-party sources. A search through the WikiProject Video games guide to sources has turned up nothing. The existing source (MMOHut) has been judged to be specifically unreliable by WPVG. Using the WPVG custom Google search has found only unreliable reviews, blog posts, and press releases, nothing that we can use. Wyatt Riot (talk) 05:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  Wyatt Riot (talk) 05:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Fairly quick to mark it for deletion, being only a few hours old. Using the WPVG search actually does find the review referenced in the article and all material referenced is merely gameplay information or an actual review and therefore "Critical Reception". If a review by MMOHut is not enough, I shall add information from Gamasutra which is also found by the WPVG.

I also stress that the phrase "Non-notable" is an opinion, as I am sure to many that it is very notable. --Jeirhart (talk) 07:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - keep in mind that most of the Gamasutra links are press releases, which fall under self-published sources, and thus are unreliable. --Teancum (talk) 12:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. As far as I can tell, all of the Gamasutra links about this game are press releases. The others are about the similarly-named Caesar games. Wyatt Riot (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * However the article cited in question was a review, not a press release. A review published by a third party with no conflict of interest that judged the game and was used as an example of critical reception and basic game information.  --Jeirhart (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to the MMOHut review, please be aware that WikiProject Video games has found them to be a specifically unreliable site, which is why we don't include their reviews. Wyatt Riot (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How do I go about proving this article or website in general is reliable? Is there a list of gaming websites that can be considered reliable?--Jeirhart (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, the WikiProject Video games guide to sources is the best place to start. If it's not listed or there's no review, look for things like editorial policies, a list of editors (especially with real names), the quality of writing, things like that are the best sign of a reliable source. Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom as it doesn't establish notability. Handschuh-talk to me 02:52, 14 November 2010 (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.