Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idle RPG


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 03:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Idle RPG

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

failed prod with the reasoning "lack of sources is not a valid reason for deleting an article. This topic passes the google test with 639,000 results." Google hits is not reliable, especially since as mentioned almost all are fansites, unreliable sources or primary sources and thus does not pass notability and probably not verifiability. It is also made up almost entirely of original research. じん ない  03:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Reasons:
 * Passes WP:GOOG notability test with 639,000 Google results
 * Result #10: http://everything2.com/e2node/IdleRPG
 * Result #16: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Idle-RPG
 * Result #20: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Idle%20RPG
 * Result #40: http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Idle:RPG.html
 * Result #41: http://visualwikipedia.com/en/Idle_RPG
 * Passes WP:GOOG notability test with 1,945 Search IRC results (This is used in thousands of channels, being used by many times that many users)
 * None of the remaining reasons mentioned in the proposal are valid Deletion policy and can better be fixed by Deletion policy

--BarkerJr (talk) 04:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 06:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete — nothing I could find, nor the abovementioned sources provide any verifiability of the article. Also remember that WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a good indicator of notability; it's what is found among those hits that do. MuZemike 06:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep
 * I contend that this article has inherent notability. Idle RPG software is used by 10s of thousands of users (if not more) who are spread out across all the major IRC networks. Both SearchIRC and IRSeeK clearly show just how popular this software is.
 * The average channel size for an 'Idle RPG' game channel seems to be around 50-100 users, so if you multiply that by even 1000 channels (let alone the 2000+ that these turn up) that's a heck of a lot of users.
 * You also have to keep in mind that the search results returned by SearchIRC and IRSeeK only account for a fraction of the total number of users due to the fact that these companies' monitoring bots are not present or even welcome in most IRC channels.
 * IRC related topics are also notoriously difficult to "verify" via WP:GOOG anyway due to the fact that IRC topics are generally discussed on IRC and not on the web.
 * As for the WP:GOOG results specifically, they turn up documentation for the software itself and in-game user stats that clearly show just how popular the software is. I honestly don't see how the AfD nominator could possible consider these to be fansites, unreliable sources, or primary sources as they clearly show the software is in use by thousands of users.
 * This article is also clearly marked as a stub. It still needs major improvement, but in my mind that fact alone certainly doesn't call for WP:DEMOLISH. It seems to me it would make much more sense to apply WP:ATD when it's clear an article still has a long way to go. I attempted to do just that this afternoon when I was made aware of the prod by adding inline citations. References and citations were not present when this article was initially tagged as a prod.

--Tothwolf (talk) 07:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Of the results linked to by BarkerJr, #16, #40 and #41 are copies of the Wikipedia article. The others - Urban Dictionary and Everything2.com - are user generated content and not usable as WP:Reliable sources. I'm looking through the google search hits, and I can't see anything that qualifies for our verifiability policy, let alone notability (inherent or not). "Discussed on IRC" is not a replacement for reliable, published sources. However, I am curious to see what coverage this subject has in Tim Power's book. Any chance of a quote or indication of significance? Marasmusine (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, Google has a limited preview of Tim Jowers book on Google Books and it happens to include that page. The author included a screenshot of a game in progress showing the bot preforming the battles between players. Someone appears to have just done a major update on the article itself so I need to see what all they've cited now. It seems like it's a shame that it takes an AfD to get an article expanded/updated though. Tothwolf (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All of those, except the one for the book, still fail reliable sources, and 1 source in a not notable enough for a separate article. At most you could mention Idle RPG's existence under IRC, but only what could be directly attributed to the book. Given it's 1 sentence (unless someone has the book and can cite other pages), it isn't really enough for a whole section either, but just mentioned under "Modern IRC" section. じん  ない  03:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This topic wouldn't fit into IRC at all. Idle RPG is an online game that just happens to use an IRC channel as its gameboard. If this subject is going to be covered on wikipedia it would either have to have its own article or somehow fit into an online-game/rpg topic. Considering how unique it is (IRC based, etc) the later would be probably quite difficult. Tothwolf (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly in the Online text-based role-playing game (though that article needs massive cleanup itself)? Most of it would either have to find better citations as it is original research or unveriable claims or just use the little bit from the book. じん  ない  04:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't really fit into online text-based role-playing game either. The OTBRPG article seems to be more of an overview of the various genres/mediums of OTBRPGs. Articles like Idle RPG should probably be wikilinked from a section about IRC based games in OTBRPG though, as it would make it more intuitive to navigate and get more information on IRC based games. Similarly, Idle RPG or better yet maybe OTBRPG should also be wikilinked from IRC subculture, but there doesn't yet seem to be a section in that article that covers online games that use IRC as their medium.
 * While working on cleaning up the IRC categories, I've actually found a number of articles about IRC based games, but after seeing this one get prodded and then AfD simply because it's a stub and currently lacking in Wikipedia-standard references, I'm hesitant to add templates to any of them and add them to the proper categories. If they'll just be deleted, what's the point in even trying to improve their visibility so they'll get seen and expanded by others?
 * The truth of it is, topics relating to IRC are just extremely difficult to source via Google and dead tree methods. Google didn't come about until sometime in 1998, and the Internet Archive in 1996. IRC on the other hand, has been around since 1988.
 * IRC has it's own distinct online subculture, and speaking as someone who has been involved in that subculture for better than 15 years, I can say with absolute certainty that a very large percentage of the people within that subculture don't write about the things discussed on IRC on websites that would traditionally be usable for Wikipedia article references. This makes it extremely difficult to provide traditional citations for topics of importance to the IRC subculture.
 * Based on what I've seen of the IRC related articles on Wikipedia, there are really only a handful of specific subjects that are mentioned in dead tree format. Of those, most of them are about IRC clients, likely because that software is the first (and sometimes the only) thing people see and think of when they interact with IRC. Things like the subculture and software and technology that make IRC work aren't covered nearly as well.
 * Specifically, things like the network protocols that IRC uses are documented to a limited degree in RFCs, but modern IRC networks have greatly expanded on the original standards. The best documentation you can usually find for those extensions is actually the source code for the IRCd itself.
 * Similarly, the software used for the servers isn't easy to reference for a Wikipedia article. Even though that software may have been used by millions of users, those users never saw that software directly because the client they used was the most visible component. Because of that, the only discussion you usually find about the server software is between server admins (often on IRC itself) and occasionally on a website about that specific server software.
 * Of course this doesn't mean topics relating to IRC aren't important or shouldn't have an article, but rather how important it is for those articles to exist. Without them, you end up with huge holes in the subject of IRC itself (and don't even realize those holes exist) and you have no where to begin looking for additional information.
 * Tothwolf (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Problem is with this article, every single one of those sources, except the one citing the book, fail WP:V, which is a central policies and the more cites added just go to show how unnotable and unverifable this really is. Even that one source is questionable atm. じん  ない  20:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, but we've already established that the subject of the article (the Idle RPG software/game itself) is very much in popular use and passes WP:N. Some of the references may not pass WP:V but that does not mean the article itself qualifies for deletion.
 * The references I added after you added a template cover the game's features and are perfectly valid as far as WP:V goes. They cite two developers of Idle RPG software and when it comes to software functionality, such sources are more than acceptable.  When writing about software in terms of its features or functionality, it's always much better to cite the actual developers vs a 3rd party. It's when writing about the impact or popularity of something that other sources need to come into play.
 * In this case the references show notability and popularity (search and game stats sites showing the number of Idle RPG users, channels, and the users' stats) and also show that the features of the Idle RPG software that are mentioned in this article really do exist (developer sites).
 * As for Tim Jower's book, which I assume is what you were referring to when you added "Even that one source is questionable atm.", it is perfectly acceptable in the specific citation in which it is used. The cited page shows a screenshot of an Idle RPG game in progress which clearly shows the bot preforming battles between players. This has nothing to do with Tim Jower's abilities as an author, so I'm not sure why such a question was even posed.  I think if the people who posed such a question had taken a moment to actually look at the page cited (Google Book search) that argument would have never even come up.
 * This article most definitely needs work and I agree with you 100% in that it needs additional references, which would of course generally be added while expanding/updating it. This certainly justifies including a template but it does not call for wholesale deletion of the article itself.  As you seem to have an interest in IRC and RPGs in general, if you are interested in helping expand and update this article, the help would be greatly appreciated.
 * Tothwolf (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you're right that the developer's site can be used for verifying aspects of the code, but should be still only be used sparingly. Any site that relies to heavily on such raises flags. The other sources, beyond the book, do not pass reliable sources by any stretch. They are not the developer's blogs, website, etc. not academic publications or news sites with known journalistic standards or self-published-sources by experts in the field. Verifiability isn't enough and unfortunately you haven't shown that those "reliable sources" are out there. 1 source is not enough to be notable. If you could find a page this could me merged with (you've refused both alternatives I mentioned), that would be fine, but otherwise trivial mentions doesn't make a subject notable and vanity press releases, while they are better than nothing, still is trivial notability when it's the only reliable source for notability you have. じん  ない  22:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah! Now we are finally getting somewhere :)
 * The citations that I personally added were links to the developers' websites.  The link I used for references #1 and #2  is one of the original developers.  The link I used for #4  is the website of the second most popular developer.  Source code links for these sites are  and .  Hopefully that will finally clear up the WP:V and WP:RS debate.
 * Now, as I already asked Graymornings, please don't put words into my mouth. I never refused any alternatives you brought up, but rather I gave my opinion in that the Idle RPG topic would not fit well into IRC and would likely also not fit very well into online text-based role-playing game.
 * Tothwolf (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Does copying Wikipedia articles really make it less notable? If people think the article worthy of copying, that should increase notability.  I think many of the Delete thoughts here are confusing verifiability and notability.  --BarkerJr (talk) 12:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The only sources we have are self-published or unreliable.  The Tim Jowers book, being published by Lulu, would only be an acceptable source if Jowers were "a well-known expert" on the subject area (per WP:V).  There's nothing in his CV that would appear to qualify him as an expert in IRC culture. JulesH (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * His CV clearly shows he has a background in Computer Networking, which being a general term, could easily include things relating to IRC. Heck, IRC isn't rocket science anyway. Tothwolf (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't buy the "inherent notability" of this subject. If it's got thousands of users, let's see a reliable source. As it is, the best source we can come up with is a vanity-press book. This is all verifiability stuff - we haven't even touched on notability. No third-party mentions in significant sources = no verifiability, no notability.  Graymornings (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Small press or not, it's a huge undertaking to put a book together and I doubt anyone would even attempt the process without first having the background in the subject they are writing about. In any case, the book includes a screenshot of a game in progress which happens to be a perfect example of the bot preforming a battle between players. Tothwolf (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not about Jowers having a background on the subject. It's about the book not being a reliable source according to our guidelines. It's not a small-press book; it's a vanity-press book. Anyone can write a book and publish it through a company like Lulu. A book like this just doesn't confer verifiability or notability.  Graymornings (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the page that was cited because doesn't sound like you have? I'll make it even easier for you and include a direct link. The page cited contains a screenshot taking up roughly half the page and shows an Idle RPG game in progress. The screenshot shows the bot preforming a battle between game players. The specific context in which this citation was used in the Idle RPG article is perfectly valid. Claiming that the book doesn't show what it clearly shows is unreasonable so I have to assume you've just not yet looked at it. Tothwolf (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that that book doesn't verify that particular fact. I'm saying that if this is the most reputable source in the article, it's not, on the whole, a verifiable article. Same with notability. Please read WP:SELFPUB.  Graymornings (talk) 06:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, but I'm not Tim Jowers, so WP:SELFPUB is not even the issue here. I also didn't write the original Idle RPG article and I only stepped in when it was clear someone intended to take it to AfD.
 * I never claimed that the book backed up the whole article, and the book was only used to reinforce the facts mentioned in one particular sentence (although it appears it could also be used to help reinforce facts presented in one other sentence as well). We've already established WP:N with the searches that clearly show the Idle RPG software/game is popular and very much in use by thousands of players (yes, it's an odd game and might seem strange to folks outside the IRC community, but it really does exist).
 * The point is, the screenshot published is what was referenced. Any reasonable person could see that the screenshot shows an Idle RPG game in progress.
 * And again, it's not Mr. Jowers writing that was cited. The screenshot he included is a perfect example of the bot preforming a battle between game players. The screenshot was taken in a public IRC channel (the public IRC server and channel names are clearly visible) and the user battles being played by the bot don't even include the author's nick.  His nick at the time the screenshot was made was 'flute' and can be seen in the title bar of the screenshot.
 * Tothwolf (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Something else I feel I need to point out is Lulu is not strictly a vanity press as it appears a few are claiming. Wikipedia's own article for Lulu states: "Lulu is self described as a technology company. The company offers diverse publishing services for outside publishing companies, businesses, and for self-publishers." This very well could mean Mr. Jowers is working with a small press who uses Lulu to print books. Tothwolf (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:SELFPUB is the issue here. "Self-published" in this context doesn't mean "published by the author/subject of the article." It means that it wasn't published by a reputable third-party source. And let's face it: it's most likely that Jowers published his own book.


 * But let's put verifiability aside for a moment - it's not nearly as much of an issue as notability. In order to establish notability, it must have received significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. This isn't my rule; it's policy. This Internet searches don't cut it. Jowers's book doesn't cut it. We can't have a separate notability criteria for IRC games. If no one's covered it, it's not notable.  Graymornings (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, WP:SELFPUB does not seem relevant here at all and I see no reason to keep repeating myself as far as the context in which the screenshot on one page of his book was noted. Any reasonable person will clearly see the screenshot and the sentence where it's referenced and understand what is being shown. I'm also not going to assume a book is self-published simply because Lulu offers a very diverse printing service, but it still wouldn't matter if the book was self-published or not.
 * I also think you are confusing guidelines with policy. I suggest you read WP:PG.
 * The infobox at the beginning of WP:N 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 the occasional exception."
 * As previously mentioned above, this software/game has been proven to be popular and in use by thousands.
 * So please, don't pull that whole "but it's policy" bit here.
 * If you are still going to claim the "Idle RPG" topic isn't notable, either you are misinterpreting the spirit of the WP:N guideline, or the guideline itself is fundamentally flawed and needs to be corrected.
 * Tothwolf (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you can't rewrite the guidelines in order to include this specific article. It's generally accepted that you need reliable, independent sources for notability. This article does not have them. This is why the majority of those participating in this discussion agree with deletion.  Graymornings (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's not really the point. The point is that it needs to be corrected to realize that internet topics are notable by different methods.  Most notable internet topics are not described in dead trees nor major publications.  This is true of quite a few sub cultures offline as well.  --BarkerJr (talk) 01:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That is beyond the scope of this AfD. That is for WP:N and you'll have to argue your case there, which even if you manage it, will take several months to get anything altered. じん  ない  23:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you are violating WP:UCS, because you are ignoring the intentions of WP:N. See WP:POINT.  -BarkerJr (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:POINT has to do with editing, not discussion, especially if one genuinely believes the policy is flawed. Read the policies and don't just quote them arbitrarily. WP:UCS is not a policy or guideline and if someone believes that a policy or guideline is flawed, that's a personal descion and rational discussion of why, in the appropriate place, is common sense. じん  ない  00:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey now, don't put words into my mouth. I never said anything about rewriting guidelines to include this specific artlcle. You also need to remember AfD is a discussion, not a vote. So far most of the people who've 'voted' haven't discussed very much of anything. It mainly seems to have been WP:JUSTAPOLICY and circular logic. Tothwolf (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. If this got a feature in a major video/computer game related source, I would be inclined to vote keep.  Right now I'm not seeing that. ---Bobak (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And you aren't going to find that for very many, if any IRC related topics. Topics about IRC just don't tend to make the web or major publications. That doesn't make them any less notable, it just means you have to look elsewhere to find coverage of IRC related topics. Tothwolf (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia coverage should match the coverage of reliable, published sources. If a major publisher hasn't written about a subject, then we look to see if there's a significant amount of minor publishers writing about it. One screenshot and one sentence in one minor publication is nowhere near enough coverage. Marasmusine (talk) 12:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, however policy doesn't override logic. This whole AfD began with a bunch of WP:PS and from there it has turned into WP:LAWYER. IMO this whole debate has been pushed well beyond the point of WP:COMMON.
 * I can understand wanting to keep the level of cruft down but if this particular article was really that bad it would have been speedy deleted years ago and we wouldn't even be having this debate 4.5 years after the article was first written.
 * IRC related topics are notorious for being extremely difficult to source via dead tree and web sources. I have a perfect example too, actually 9 of them, see: Articles_for_deletion/DALnet
 * In the case of that AfD, common sense prevailed. Prior to that particular AfD, there were quite a few IRC related articles that were of historical importance to the IRC community that were deleted without much in the way of discussion. I hope things aren't headed back in that direction...
 * Tothwolf (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.   —Tothwolf (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.   —Tothwolf (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   —Tothwolf (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   —Tothwolf (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.   —Tothwolf (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for now Given the apparent popularity I'd go keep with even one solid source. But there is no RS that anyone can find at this time.  I suspect there will be soon. We can't have articles without some kind of RS...  Hobit (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't help but wonder if anyone has even noticed that this article has been around for ~4.5 years? I mean it's not like this is a brand new article or a new game concept someone just came up with. This genre of IRC based game has been around for at least 10 years that I'm aware of. WP:UCS... Tothwolf (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If its been around for so long, and it still hasn't encouraged more than even a slight amount of published coverage, then that's even less reason for us to keep it. Marasmusine (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:N Examples:
 * WP:V WP:RS Developer sites:  Source code:
 * Tothwolf (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * None of the four sources you give there for WP:V and WP:RS apply to either of those because they are all Primary. Reliable sources have to be third party, so the developer's site cannot count towards that. Caissa&#39;s DeathAngel (talk) 09:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe you are mistaken. This would be the case if these sites were not the actual developers of this software. Please see this version of the Idle RPG article so you can see the context in which the developers' websites were properly used to establish WP:V. They clearly establish that the facts presented in the Idle RPG article are indeed true and aren't something someone just made up. I don't know of very many software articles on Wikipedia (particularly open source software programs such as this) that don't cite the developer's sites when referring to features or functionality of that software. This article most certainly needs major formatting changes and could probably use an infobox to make it more clear that this is an open source software program (an IRC based game). Tothwolf (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as well-known IRC game. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. If even one major publication covered this I'd support it given the apparent popularity, but as with the others I can't find one. Caissa&#39;s DeathAngel (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2009 (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.