Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GoKrida (3rd nomination)


 * 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. Proto :: ►  13:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

GoKrida (third nomination)

 * — (View AfD)

This is the third nomination- normally I wouldn't do this, but the first two didn't actually discuss much (the second nomination took almost a month to generate any discussion). There are no reliable sources for this article at all. Google shows nothing and it looks like no major sites link to it. No mentions in google news either. The article is not verifiable Wafulz 22:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Looks fun/interesting, but nothing on LexisNexis, and only 67 unique Ghits after discounting Wikimirrors. No bias against re-creation if notability can subsequently be demonstrated. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not appear to assert notability. Yuser31415 19:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Hit bull. -- Kicking222 21:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep (I couldn't figure out if I'm allowed to vote as an anonymous user. Even if not, please take my thoughts into consideration) GoKrida's Google Search may return only 14800 results, and it definitely has less than 1000 participants. However, RuneScape, a very popular online game, only returns 512000 results with about 175000 players online when I wrote this. GoKrida has many more results per player. With regards to reliable sources, GoKrida has little to nothing for official reference, since the point of the game is for the players to discover information. I would gladly cite some references made by respected players, but I do not know if that is good enough. I think it would be a shame for Wikipedia to lose an article about a unique game due to a lack of verifiable sources, so hopefully we can find a solution. --75.129.241.82 22:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether you're anonymous or not doesn't matter, it's just the point that you make. Unfortunately, the article needs sources (the Google pages illustrate that I could not find any). Wikipedia articles don't reflect anything about their subjects other than how many sources are available. --Wafulz 03:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I've been trying to do some research that should make this a more Wikipedia-worthy article, but it's hard to find sources that satisfy certain Wikipedians. Because of this, I haven't really updated the article itself in a while.  I would like it to be there so that I can keep working on it. B7T 22:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've made the assertion that there are no sources that would fit WP:RS- the only way to keep the article would be to prove that sources exist. --Wafulz 03:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a guideline, not a policy; although this sort of information is what I have been trying to discover. B7T 03:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually WP:RS is a guideline in conjuction with WP:V, which is a policy. No reliable sources implies no verifiability. --Wafulz 03:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:V specifies that it is to be used if the material is challenged or likely to be challenged. Does this seem to be the case with this material? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.146.221.26 (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete "I would like it to be there so that I can keep working on it." tells me that the author feels like the article is not yet good enough. This is a red flag for me. Ask an administrator to userfy it for you, so that you can work on it until you feel like it is ready to be considered again. Brendan Alcorn 04:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I thought it was good enough to remain since before the last AfD. I do, however, think it could be better, especially since other Wikipedians seem to find it controversial enough to keep nominating it for deletion.  Userfying it might not be a bad idea, but this is intended to be a collaborative effort; and having it in my userspace may keep others who'd be useful in improving the article from finding it. B7T 06:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No vote. This article does not appear to meet notability requirements, but has undergone no significant changes since the last two votes, both of which were judged to have a consensus of "keep". Note that this is different from "No Consensus" as was given to NexusWar the first time (article has subsequently been deleted after being nominated a second time by the same nominator as this article, Wafulz). Given that the community has already reached consensus to keep this article, not once, but twice, should it not fall to the nominator to demonstrate why the community was wrong both times previously? 68.146.221.26 09:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's in my first sentence. --Wafulz 18:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm curious as to what I can do to help improve the article if none of the outside sources on GoKrida are considered verifiable by Wikipedia. Would it help if similar information were published to a privately owned page and then referenced from this article? It seems a waste to create another page to verify this page but it's not that hard. The WP:RS Page says that "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable secondary sources" so would a player created page be considered a reliable secondary source? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.13.225.100 (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC).
 * "For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Missed that part-- should have read down farther...sorry! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.13.225.100 (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep. If it was kept the first two times, nothing's changed since then.  JWR 20:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read through my nomination and through consensus can change. The article didn't have sources then, and it doesn't have sources now. --Wafulz 21:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change, but has it? The only real notice this article gets is when someone decides it needs to be nominated for deletion once again.  And I wonder why it even gets notice at all in this regard, considering some of the badly-written and sparsely-sourced articles I've seen that have never been nominated. B7T 05:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The only way to keep this from being deleted is to provide sources- read through the first two discussions. One was rife with confusion, and the other took almost a month and really should have ended in a delete or no consensus since there were a lot of WP:ILIKEIT votes. If I had more time I would nominate every "bad" article that I stumbled upon. Unfortunately, time is limited, so I can only do a few at a time, and about 50% of the time I get the argument that "there are other articles that should be nominated so why do you pick on us?" Nobody is stopping you from nominating them (however, don't just nominate articles frivolously to make a point). --Wafulz 05:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What should we look for as sources? Do gaming directories count? 24.13.225.100 04:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I asked a more generalized version of this same question here, because it seemed that  WP:RS and WP:NOR rather frustrated any efforts to include articles in Wikipedia for items of this type of media.  Both articles mentioned in the agreeing response are still part of Wikipedia. B7T 07:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: There has been some discussion on the application of Wikipedia policies to articles about browser-based games.  We might want to consider things like this when nominating one for deletion. B7T 08:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Like the other user pointed out, verifiability is non-negotiable. Your analogy is also flawed since book reviews tend to hash out the plot or book contents and any relevant details. I don't see the connection between books and games, or how WP:RS or WP:NOR are counterintuitive at all. Admittedly though, many "plot" sections of books need to be honed down significantly. --Wafulz 20:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If by pointing out that book reviews overdo it on summarizing the plot you're making a comparison to the "Player-created culture and history" section of the article, then I agree; most or all of the information there is actually unneccessary to anyone just looking to familiarize themselves with the concept of GoKrida but not actually intending to participate. I still stand by my assertion that WP:RS or WP:NOR may be counterintuitive, however; wouldn't the book/game itself be a reliable source or an obvious and logical place to discover details? B7T 06:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability is only a guideline. Stop using it as an end-all argument as though it's Wikipedia policy.  However, the Notability page links to this, which is a policy. B7T 12:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately for this article, WP:V is also a policy. If there aren't any reliable sources about GoKrida (and it seems that there aren't), no information on it can have a place here. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there are no reliable sources as Wikipedia policy goes. But those editing this page didn't make this stuff up.  Users of Wikipedia seem to have a different concept of Wikipedia than some of its editors do, and consider Wikipedia itself to be a "reliable source".  I've heard of several players who started GoKrida by finding it in a Google search (yes, apparently it can be found with the right keywords), and checking it out on Wikipedia to find out more about it, as there seem to be few other informative resources currently available to those who haven't created an account there.  Since it seems you may have overlooked the link in my last post, let me make it clearer that I believe that this article falls under the policy WP:IAR. B7T 16:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Online games are notoriously hard to find sources for outside of the official site and fan base. RuneScape, for example, didn't have any third party sources in the Wikipedia entry for quite some time. Many other game entries still do not. Bear in mind that the spirit of the policies that have been mentioned is directed towards more scholarly assertions that are or could be disputed and argued over. Therefore I don't find the lack of sources to be a problem by itself. Although I vote to keep this article, I will add the provision that improvements should be made to it in the coming months. If it is still in the same state in several months time I would agree that it should be deleted. More specifically I think some of the information is only relevant to players of the game and should be deleted. Other topics are not expanded upon enough (for example the "GKF" is only mentioned in passing). But the talk page is more appropriate for such a discussion. 81.79.95.66 19:47, 8 January 2007
 * Well it's gone a year without sources. I've asserted that there are no sources to be found- if this is untrue, then the only way to prove it is to bring the sources up. Everything on the encyclopedia should be "academic"- that is to say, it should all be sourced through secondary sources.--Wafulz 03:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, there seems to have always been some sort of deliberate obfuscation of GoKrida on the part of the administration, design team, etc. I'm guessing we're unlikely to find any sources. B7T 05:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that's unfortunate. Oh well. --Wafulz 07:04, 9 January 2007 (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.