Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeon Inquisitor


 * 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 07:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Dungeon Inquisitor

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable game; in addition, Wikipedia is not a place for posting game guides. (declined PROD) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The computer game section of NOTHOWTO is a list of game mechanics inexplicably, almost arbitrarily, censored at Wikipedia. To my mind, the article's current content fails in that it does NOT discuss game mechanics, and they can only be inferred from the summary of gameplay. Anarchangel (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: Fails WP:WEB. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Like all games, it has a website. Like all games, the article is about the game, not the website. Inapplicable rule. Anarchangel (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:WEB gives the notability guidelines for web content, including browser games. I've seen many such games deleted for failing WP:WEB. The template even specifically includes browser games as web content deletion candidates. Wyatt Riot (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep the article. This is actually a fast-growing game featured on the major game portal Kongregate.  It is developing a cult following and more players are playing this game and would like a basic overview of what it's about before playing it.  The article was not meant to be a guide, but more of an overview of the game.  The information posted is brief and not sufficient enough to be called a guide.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.54.215.10 (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)  — 182.54.215.10 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * "Fast growing" or "developing a cult following" are not notability criteria. For a game to merit an article on Wikipedia, it can't be up-and-coming, it must have already arrived. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. The fact that the article is a game guide could be fixed by rewriting it completely, but I can't find any reliable sources supporting any claim to notability. (THere is no such claim in the article at present, either.) --bonadea contributions talk 18:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete under WP:CSD - article about online content with no assertion of importance. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah yeah, I was thinking "video game", which isn't one of the A7s, but a browser game would fall under online content. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is an "assertion (sic)" of importance: "This game features on the major game platform Kongregate and has over 40,000 players worldwide". The assessment of browser games as "online content" with respect to A7 is peremptory and lacks good rationale, even in the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion; there are people there who believe that MMOs should be treated the same as other "online content". Anarchangel (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, it is a prominent game on the major game platform Kongregate with over 40,000 players. The feedback has been positive on the article, saying how popular the article is: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Dungeon_Inquisitor&ref=cta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sksksthisk (talk • contribs) 19:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)  — Sksksthisk (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * *sigh* anyone care to fire up an SPI? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Done: Sockpuppet investigations/Mirianth. Could be meatpuppets of course, but worth checking. --bonadea contributions talk 19:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Lack of coverage from reliable, third party sources. Fails the WP:GNG. As others have said, Wikipedia is not a gameguide either. Sergecross73   msg me   14:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. No coverage, no article.  Delete slowly, not speedily, however, since "assertion of importance" is a stupid unencyclopedic thing to require to be in an article, CSD A7 is archaic pre-GNG nonsense, and the whole criterion should itself be speedily deleted. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I wholly agree. Rules with subjective parameters that rely on the discretion and WP:COMPETENCE of editors make no provision for editor failure. Evidence:
 * Amatulic's use of "assertion" (the rule states "indication of importance")
 * While there is no requirement to openly state importance, it must be inferred by those testing the rule. More room for failure, and sure enough, that editor believes that there is no evidence of importance. My evidence to the contrary is above; the article also states that the game "incorporates advanced technology". It leaves out the most important part, though, that the game uses natural language processing technology, as this source shows.
 * These errors are compounded by replication, as shown by Writ Keeper's ditto of the "online content" miscategorization and your own good faith belief that Amatulic was correct to use "assertion". Anarchangel (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, as you can see if you look at the article's history, the first paragraph was added after Amatulić's !vote here so there was neither an assertion nor an indication of importance at that point. That being said, now there is a (very weak) claim to importance which means that A7 probably isn't applicable. --bonadea contributions talk 07:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure why we're talking about A7 here, but regardless, linking to the WP:Competence is required essay is not as who should say a classy thing to do. That essay is for a very different context.  Finally, a browser game does qualify for A7.  Look at the text of the template: it specifically names browser games. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 07:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator's reasons. No clear assertion of notability. --Artene50 (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep due to innovation in the browser game field with its use of natural language processing,(source) or failing that, Redirect to Kongregate. Do not support delete, do not support merge without sources. Anarchangel (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * bbgsite.com has been found to be an unreliable source at WP:VG/S. Wyatt Riot (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't find any reliable sources that mention the game at all, much less any that support the claim that its use of NLP is particularly significant. --bonadea contributions talk 07:24, 16 July 2012 (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.