Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immortal Cities: Nile 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Immortal Cities: Nile Online

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

Non-notable webgame. Only a single reliable source consisting of an interview with the developer in which the game is mentioned. The rest is all trivial or blog coverage. Delete as per WP:WEB and WP:CORP Peephole (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Weak Keep - In addition to the one on GamersHell, there's also a review interview by GameSetWatch, part of the Gamasutra network; and [Ed. a review at] Macleans.ca, which according to its About page seems pretty reliable. SharkD (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed with SharkD.--Agamemnus (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There are also news items at WorldsInMotion as well as Blue's News and 4Gamer. SharkD (talk) 04:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: You call that reviews? Seems more like glorified press releases to me.--Peephole (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * They are not reviews nor are they press releases!--Agamemnus (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct in that the GameSetWatch article is not a review. Also, I pasted the wrong link. The others are exactly what I said they are. SharkD (talk) 06:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Immortal Cities: Children of the Nile, which is what this is adapted from according to the Worlds in Motion piece, surprised that it's not linked within this article. If what's here is it as far as sources are concerned then there's no reason not to include it in the parent article (the original game was reviewed in all the magazines and is perfectly notable). Ahh, my legs, I'm quadrapilates :S Someoneanother 15:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a completely different game than CoTN. Instead of merging, maybe a link instead would be good.--Agamemnus (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * They're separate games, yes, but related and merging is a damn sight better than deleting. Looking again at the sources the two usable reviews (one of which, the one by the student with no apparent background in journalism let alone game journalism, and is extremely weak) don't provide enough material for a reception section which every video game article should have. The interview is just that, a platform for the developer to speak, not analysis from a third party, it's certainly useful but it's not outside opinion. If the other article wasn't there I'd be leaning delete. Someoneanother 04:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

What are the criteria for being notable exactly? Hpelgrift (talk) 04:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 
 * The general notability guideline says it best. MuZemike 04:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and change the Wikipedia notability policy Far too many articles that are important to niche groups are being deleted, making wikipedia weaker as an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are meant to be all-including. I am not saying that every single thing in the world should get an article, but this game has 3,829 players at the moment. Also, news coverage, while an indicator to the notability of something, is not a hard guide; there are enough of things out there that have weak coverage but are very notable to prove that what I say is true. Specially since most news coverage on the net is American, and a large part of the following of this game is European. --Andrelvis (talk) 04:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please discuss the notability guideline at WT:N; do not soapbox about your dislike of it here. MuZemike 04:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The WP: SOAP applies only to the articles themselves, not pages like this one. What is the point of indicating me to a link you didn't even read properly? This is a perfectly viable place for expressing contempt on wikipedia's policy of notability. --Andrelvis (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. That is what WT:N or starting a request for comment to change the guideline is for. MuZemike 22:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I have put in a review by a Wall Street Journal gaming staff writer, Krish Raghav. (reference 5)Hpelgrift (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC) — Hpelgrift (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic..
 * Keep the wiki page has had some notable improvements since it was flagged for deletion, mostly by the Nile Online community. Also, merging Nile Online with Children of the Nile is a very bad idea. They are made by the same people, but they are totally unrelated games.Erenath (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * — Erenath (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  00:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep — it looks like a minimal amount of notability was established. There are a couple of reliable secondary sources in there, particularly in the Gamer's Hell and the review from the Wall Street Journal online blog (which I think is authoritative enough to pass as reliable). MuZemike 04:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, the flood of new users !voting to keep sets off my alarm. Stifle (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Non sequitur.--Agamemnus (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My account here at wikipedia is from 2005, Hpelgrift's from September, 2008 (which is to say, before this discussion was even born), Agamemnus's is from 2006. Only Eranath's is from after the discussion was started. Please review your knowledge of things before saying them. --Andrelvis (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of red around and only two SPAs from what I notice. We don't have a flood of them as a result of off-wiki canvassing/rally cry because someone on a forum noticed the big red tag on top of their article and posted ZOMG OUR WIKI ARTICLE IS BEING DELETED or something like that. MuZemike 22:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete In my opinion, the amount of notability established is just too minimal. Also, what Stifle said. --Bonadea (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you delete this, you might as well just admit that this doesn't exist. As part of the Tilted Mill set of games (which earns millions per year in revenue), that will make the entry for Tilted Mill games incomplete. If you merge it with Immortal Cities: Children of the Nile, the two games will be confused. Therefore, you must keep.--Agamemnus (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. For the same reasons I have already stated before. What is the point of an encyclopedia if it only gathers information that is already widespread on news coverage? --Andrelvis (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment You don't need to repeat your keep/delete endorsement. The admin will spot it if you post it one time. --Peephole (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't know. I thought that when it was put as "relisted" there it meant that the votes before didn't count. --Andrelvis (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Nah, doesn't need to happen. Also, remember that AfD's aren't meant to be votes, but discussions. --Peephole (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This isn't an unknown game being developed by a group of kids in their parents' basement. Immortal Cities is already a franchise; an official addition to that franchise which we are already covering should be unquestionably deserving of coverage on Wikipedia. Crazed Ewok | Talk 18:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The WSJ is adequate for notability. 4000 players is enough. I never heard of the game before 5 minutes ago, if anyone wants to know. DGG (talk) 01:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article might qualify for a stub-class rating, but it's from a notable designer and has at least two notable press mentions (Macleans and WSJ), so it deserves a second chance. Since the deletion tag went up, the response has been several editors working to improve it. I say let's let that play out. Somerut (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - I'd prefer some professional reviews rather than these (albeit reliably published) blog entries. That is, a review that gives an overview with both positive and negative criticisms - rather than the "Hey, I've played this and you should too!" posts of WSJ and Macleans. Marasmusine (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you give an example of a free web-based game that has received, in your opinion, a "professional" review? --Agamemnus (talk) 07:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For example, these MMOHUB reviews of web-based games follow the classical critical format. On the whole, games magazines (either paper or web) don't give a lot of attention to this genre - but Wikipedia coverage should reflect that. Marasmusine (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, those reviews is only slightly more encompassing than a few of the sources given for this one. Also: I don't think Wikipedia "coverage" should reflect the commercial interests of review sites...--Agamemnus (talk) 05:09, 9 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.