Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expansions of Eve Online


 * 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. Article needs strong improvement. I will be adding the post-AFD cleanup template to reflect the need for improvement, but there is clearly consensus to keep the subject. KaisaL (talk) 02:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Expansions of Eve Online

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Eve Online might certainly be a notable game, but just because it gets updated regularly is not a reason to keep a huge list of updates (WP:VGSCOPE No. 10) with numerous minor gameplay changes (WP:VGSCOPE No. 7). It is a subscription-based online multiplayer game, and from what I gather from the article and the Eve Online official website, it is updated constantly, free of charge, for every user. So unlike MMO's like World of Warcraft and its expansions, they are not optional and are in essence part of Eve Online right away, which the main article should reflect. Eve Online already shows, well, the major content patches, which are sufficient. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - I think that the details of each of the major content updates is probably notable content about Eve. This would normally go in the main article, except that there's so much detail that having a sub article seems like a reasonable solution for pure organizational purposes, and for ease of reading.  Each of the updates is already getting a summary sentence in the main article, this provides more than a sentence for each.  The main article links to this page as a "see more details" kind of thing.  This is wikipedia's summary style executed perfectly.  No reason to delete.  Fieari (talk) 05:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your reply. The thing is, this article isn't about the major content updates, it's about every expansion. Like you said, there's so much detail that, to me, that's WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:CHANGELOG. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Soetermans. This article seems to be about every "named" update, which includes the major content updates as well.  I could see an argument, if you made it, for cutting this article down to just the big updates, leaving out the smaller ones, but in that case, I'd still !vote for keeping the article itself, again, as a good use of summary style.  That said, I don't have a problem with lumping in the smaller updates in with the big ones, given that this IS a spinoff article to provide more detail on a subject summarized in the main article.  So... edit down if necessary (I don't think it is necessary, but YMMV), but definitely don't delete. Fieari (talk) 04:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - As a reader, this article is incredibly useful to me; as an editor I defer to Soetermans' knowledge of wikipedia policies and accept that this article is full of extraneous detail and reads like a changelog. Even as someone familiar with the material, I find Eve Online to be an unreadable mess. Perhaps this section of the main article could be improved rather like Star_Wars:_The_Old_Republic which is much more readable. However I am concerned that condensing 13 years of additions in this way would be impossible considering that the main Eve article is already too long and has a request on its talk page to be split up. If this page is to be kept it needs to be aggressively pruned so that only major new features and major changes to existing features are mentioned: This is the real value in the article and the detailed information can be gleaned from the the referenced patch notes and CCP's eve updates site. Ischloear (talk) 10:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Cleanup. This is mostly a case of cleanup right now. The parent article has length issues and this is a reasonable split, but only if done summary style. Eve Online reads like a list instead of explaining what the patches did and why they were important... The article in question needs TNT—blow up all of the primary source stuff and only list the details that were important enough for secondary sources. Many of the minor patches with insignificant coverage should be excluded. Primary sources should only be used to fill in the cracks between reliable sources, not form the basis of the article. czar  00:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Cleanup. Absolutely agree with Czar. No content explaining why these patches were important or significant.--176.104.110.11 (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2016 (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.