Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dice Wars


 * 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. W.marsh 00:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Dice Wars


Browser game with no real claims of notability or sources. Fails WP:WEB and doesn't seem to have any independent sources about it either, failing WP:V. Wickethewok 13:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. MartinDK 14:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Can't find non-trivial coverage about the game, and could probably be classified as a Risk variant.  --Sigma 7 14:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per Nom. Chris Kreider 14:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Retain - Sources issue is inherent to browser-based software; notability appears to be no less than some obscure historical figures or short-lived comics; while clearly derived from Risk, is no closer to Risk than Kriegspiel is to Chess. This article surfaces issues with wikiPolicy on web-based items not documented on dead paper, in particular, most or all of the articles in category:Flash Games. rewinn 15:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Source issue is not inherent to browser-based software; nothing about being online prevents or excuses the subject from demonstrating notability by citing verifiable sources. -Stellmach 15:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * well, o.k. but ... to the extent that discussion is allowed in RfD ... isn't it true that the purpose of "verifiable sources" to ensure accuracy & NPOV, two characteristics that are not at issue here? There are things about Flash games that such that they do not lend themselves to dead tree publication, yet it can not be true that the entire category of Flash games is not encyclopediac. rewinn 20:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't understand where you get the idea that accuracy & NPOV are not issues when dealing with flash games (they are issues in every single article, including and especially ones on flash games). RuneScape, for example is a browser game (though not a flash game), and it's (gasp) full of reliable sources.  Using other articles to justify this one is not a sound plan - other articles may be deleted for the same sourcing reason, but we haven't gotten around to it.  ColourBurst 05:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I was unclear. By "not at issue here" I don't intend to assert that accuracy and POV are not important; merely that in this case there are no claims (at this time) of accuracy or POV issues. The assertions in the article are trivially verifiable. rewinn 01:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment "playing the game and verifying the game does what it's purported to do" is considered original research. (Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source.)  In addition, the only things in the article are rules and strategy (not allowed by WP:NOT), and once you remove those, you're left with around 1 line, and that line isn't verified by a third-party source.  ColourBurst 23:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Retain - ditto rewinn. Ingle 22:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 00:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This game almost has cult status. A bad article doesn't mean there should be no article. Wouter Lievens 10:17, 16 November 2006 (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.