Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DragonSpires


 * 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. Keeper |  76  13:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

DragonSpires

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Some sources unreliable, or mention the game in passing as part of a story or interview of Furcadia. Article appears to rely on inheriting from the notability of Furcadia. Notability of later recreation of the game under Java also appears to be nonexistent. Lots of fan sites but I can't find any real RS's. -- ferret (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  -- ferret (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Wired magazine gives it significant coverage.    D r e a m Focus  17:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.  D r e a m Focus  17:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Two paragraphs in a "net surf" column isn't significant coverage. Nor does a single source establish notability. -- ferret (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The content not the length determine whether the coverage is significant.  D r e a m Focus  19:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And the content is trivial. Here's a summary: the creators were somehow involved with Ultima (keeping in mind that notability isn't inherited), the game is vaguely focused more on social elements than combat (but nothing more than that), unsubstantiated rumor, a cost that was only current while in development, that unnamed features are being added, and out-of-date ways to access the game. There is almost zero information we can use to write an encyclopedia article. This is the epitome of a trivial reference. Woodroar (talk) 05:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hopefully people will read the content themselves, instead of your inaccurate summary. "This shiny-new graphic MUD has a look similar to some of the best home-PC fantasy games".  It then tells what makes the game unique from other games.   D r e a m Focus  08:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:WEB. Like today's flash-based browser games, most muds weren't notable. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:N/WP:WEB. Woodroar (talk) 05:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - No article should be subject of repeated failed attempts at deletion like this. The page matches the spirit of Wikipedia and is notable for being one of the first graphical multiplayer games to exist. Articles cited may only loosely fit, but keep in mind the spirit and purpose of this website above all else. Finding articles to delete should not be a hobby, and repeatedly trying to erase important information shouldn't be done to soothe your ego once it's voted to stay. This article has been put up for removal and merge before, and this smacks of trying to break down the people who want to keep it. 4.154.4.83 (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * None of that matters to WP:N, WP:V, WP:WEB, etc. As far as I'm aware, this is the first AFD for this article. -- ferret (talk) 02:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to ignore anything outside your focus, they yes it may not have been posted exactly here. I didn't specify AFD. 4.154.4.83 (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:V is clearly met Ferret. There is no doubt this exist and the information within the article is true.  D r e a m Focus  02:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you all consider The Independent Game Source, a valued and respected independent game source, to be a valid source on independent games? Or does Wikipedia rule creep knock that out, too? Search "Dragon Spires" on that page. 4.154.4.83 (talk) 02:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Blogs and other self-published/user-generated sources are, in most cases, not reliable sources. In the above blog entry, he's clearly writing as a player, not as a game journalist. And even there, it's trivial information. So no, nothing that we can use.
 * As far as the "spirit of Wikipedia" goes, policies and guidelines like WP:N and WP:V and WP:NOT exist for a reason: because we're not here to collect miscellaneous facts. We're here to document what reliable sources have to say about subjects within our scope. That, if anything, is the spirit of what we're here to do. Woodroar (talk) 04:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You think TIGSource.com, where indie games on par with Fez and including Fez are announced as well as covered and reported on is a blog? You think the owner of the site is just a player and not a journalist? Wow. Just wow. It's time to stop going further and further just to win and delete the page, it's getting offensive. 4.154.4.83 (talk) 05:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Tigsource is probably considered an RS, though just barely as they don't have editorial policies listed anywhere. We can take it to WP:VG/S for an opinion if you want. But the only mention of DragonSpire I found was a brief announcement for the java remake "Dragon Spire 2", and that was as brief as the Wired reference. The author clearly states that he himself is a player of the game though. -- ferret (talk) 11:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you think anyone would review a game without playing it first? Finding things on the internet that were published 19 years ago, is going to be difficult as many places don't have a searchable archive, and some magazines are no longer in publication even.  Wired magazine doesn't just list every single game out there, so them listing it as they did shows they consider it notable.  The content matters not its length.   D r e a m Focus  12:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand the "review without playing" point you are making, but this wasn't that. The editor claims to be a long time community member of the project, which is beyond simply reviewing it. -- ferret (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * DS2 currently has a very small, but active, group of members (including myself) that has been around since the very first iterations of the game. Not really bias, just someone who played the game from the start. I find it unlikely that any game reviewer doesn't have some games they liked and thus play a lot, and they'd be reviewing these games if given the chance to do so of course.  No reason to disqualify their opinion.   D r e a m Focus  14:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If I might add to your point, he includes himself in the group of members, and says that there has been a group of active but few players since the beginning. All apples are fruits, but not all fruits are apples. He's a member of the group, but the group itself has been around since the start. It can be taken either way, but why are we then choosing the negative? 4.154.6.72 (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So there is a problem with the Java version not being mentioned anywhere, and the reward for finding it mentioned someone, even though it's incorrectly called "2", is just to have the whole thing discounted again. That doesn't really encourage positive participation in this process. 4.154.6.72 (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * So, a famous game designer, Dr. Cat, who has done significant work on many famed well reviewed bestselling games in the past, starts his own company, making his own game which is one of the first of its kind, and gets praised from Wired magazine. I find it unlikely that other magazines, specifically those that normally review computer games, wouldn't have mentioned it also.  Does anyone doubt that this?  If anyone has any 19 year old computer magazines lying around, and feels like digging through their game review sections, that'd be great, but not likely to happen.  Failing to find proof of coverage, does not mean you have to believe no other coverage exist, and notability can be determined in other ways.  WP:NOTABILITY states This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.   D r e a m Focus  14:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Doubt doesn't come into it. If you don't have a reference, then it can't be used. There is no notability here. The fact that Dr. Cat is notable doesn't help this article. Nor the fact that he made his own company, nor that this was one of the first games it released. None of those things give notability to the topic of the game itself. WP:INHERENT applies to all of that. -- ferret (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia shouldn't have an article unless and until we have multiple sources that are non-trivial and reliable and independent. We don't include articles just because you (or any other editor) says it's important. That's original research, not an "occasional exception". Editors have had almost eight years to find and scan references and it hasn't happened. Woodroar (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What's happening here is that ferret and woodroar are both supplying reasons they want the page removed, and every time anyone offers a counter, they shift and try something new or completely ignore the information. You cited something that openly says in plain text that exceptions can be made. I choose to determine this is one of those exceptions, and now you have nothing to back up saying I can't. Every time you are shown a loophole, I'm giving you benefit by calling it that, then you just keep moving around it. This isn't based on rules, because your own cited guidelines keep getting reduced and/or reintepreted. After that, you restate the few you have left, and go fishing for new reasons to continue trying to get what you want. This isn't productive. This is bullying. Almost seven days, 3 to 2, points made on both sides, seems on track for no clear concensus. 4.154.6.72 (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong. You haven't proven notability for these two topics (DragonSpire and DragonSpire Java Remake) as stand-alone articles. They do not have notability. -- ferret (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's kind of disconcerting how you ignore things that don't further your goal of removal. 4.153.8.147 (talk) 07:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's disappointing that you can't accept that I (and others) simply disagree with you, requiring you to stoop to accusations of some grand plot or campaign to remove things you like. These topics are not notable on their own. -- ferret (talk) 11:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's no grand plot, there's just two of you. 4.153.8.224 (talk) 05:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:N/WP:WEB. p  b  p  15:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 *  Delete  - Fails the WP:GNG, the coverage just simply isn't there (or hasn't been presented yet.) (The sources in the article are weak. For instance, sure, two reliable sources, GameSpy and IGN are in there. But take a closer look at the sources. Both are merely minor database entries that mentions the name "DragonSpires" in an extremely passive manner. And one source completely mirrors the other - its the same trivial entry. It almost looks like a little bit of WP:BOMBARD...) Sergecross73   msg me   13:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * IGN says "Its release of DragonSpires in 1994 pioneered the market." Anyway, look at the Wired magazine link please, and other things brought up above.  What are your opinions on that?    D r e a m Focus  14:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but database entries don't usually work towards the GNG, especially when its not even a database entry for that game, and its a vague, singular sentence. Wired is a good source in general, but it takes more than one source to meet the GNG, and this source in particular is rather brief. (2 short paragraphs, with the last couple sentences only talking about getting to the website/server etc.) TIGSource doesn't look reliable, looks like one of endless non-notable self-published blogs. Much of what's in the article now don't look much better... Sergecross73   msg me   15:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - I still stand by my comments above as far as those particular sources go, but the book sources provided (that I hadn't come across personally) are enough for me to change my !vote. Sergecross73   msg me   13:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * weak keep ground breaking, one of the very first graphical muds, with involvement from major designers. Also see this book and this one both discussing that this was breaking new ground with graphics. But the wired hit is strong enough imo. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Good find. I see a lot of other results from a Google book search for DragonSpire, and most of those results still remain when "Dr. Cat" is added to the search parameters.  Most don't seem to have previews enough to read everything they said about it though, but all found the game notable enough to mention, out of the countless games out there they didn't mention.  This one was notable enough to stand out.   D r e a m Focus  16:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * comment - on the other hand, even the wiki-fur wiki redirects dragonspires to furcadia, and our own furcadia page says it is essentially the next version of dragonspires, that is a good argument for a redirect/merge and creation of a "Dragonspires" section in furcadia. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * More of a sequel than the same game. Just some code reused perhaps, but all game companies do that.   D r e a m Focus  16:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I ran across those books while looking for sources a few months back. I wish they were available online, because the impression that I get is that the author is basing his facts solely on information from the developers (even stating it explicitly several times) which doesn't inspire confidence in his reliability. I'd like to see what they actually say. Until then, we can't really reference them without having access to the articles. Woodroar (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of these books are used for references in other Wikipedia articles already. I contacted one person who seems to have access to them, to ask them to search for DragonSpires.    D r e a m Focus  16:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A WP:SECONDARY source basing their work on WP:PRIMARY sources? Is that supposed to be controversial or unusual in some way? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's more that the secondary source is merely repeating information provided by the primary source without (it appears) any sort of fact checking, and hence unreliable. That's my concern. Without reading the article, I couldn't say if my hunch is true or not, but I get that feeling from statements like "according to the designer" and "which the authors hope". Woodroar (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. Before I get into the details of the sourcing here, I want to point out that WP:WEB is irrelevant to this article, as its subject is not a Web site or Web content, any more than Starcraft II: Heart of the Swarm is.  No, "web content" is not anything that vaguely smells like the Internet to you.  It is a term that has a meaning, and this article's subject is outside that meaning. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The scope of WEB may have changed since the last time you looked, because it now covers "[a]ny content which is distributed solely on the Internet", even if "packaged into material form, such as onto CD, DVD, or book form". The WEB deletion template specifically mentions, for example, browser games as falling within its scope.
 * Not that this really matters much, as the recent additions appear to shore up the notability concerns. I'll take a full look in the morning, but I anticipate changing my !vote. Woodroar (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It might help to note DOS games were not browser games. Also Dragon Spires remained a downloadable program even after the web based java version was available. It was accessable both ways so people could play together via website and downloadable. 4.153.8.224 (talk) 05:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. I've added three book citations to the article, and I think it's abundantly clear that between them and the Wired cite, the topic handily meets the GNG.  And really, I have to put in that meaningfully pioneering the "graphical MUD" space (which we presently are more familiar with as the "MMORPG" space) is kind of a big deal. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Sources clearly establish notability as one of the earliest MMORPGs, and as has been pointed out already, WP:WEB does not apply here anyway. KaVir (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * With the addition of the book sources by Chaos5023 and Kavir, I'm withdrawing my nomination of this AFD. The article needs further work and some of the other sources remain questionable, but the books appear to satisfy WP:N, along with Wired. -- ferret (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2013 (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.