Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medieval Diplomacy


 * 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. Mailer Diablo 00:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Medieval Diplomacy
The "popular" online game only gets 735 google hits. It's not so popular I guess. -- Koffieyahoo 00:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 (T 00:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Why do people say "only so many google hits"? Deletion is a serious matter and you have done nothing to contest the game's notability, seeing that you have taken the time to list it AFD then surely you might also have the time to research its notability or otherwise. -- Librarianofages 02:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Since it's an online game that is claimed to be very popular you might expect a large number of google hits. -- Koffieyahoo 02:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * CommentThat is conjecture, prove that its not played by a lot of people. -- Librarianofages 02:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. That's not the way we work here. You need to prove that there is sufficient information available to verify everything said about the subject, and you need to prove that the game is important. The latter bit isn't actually policy but more a consensus the community has established, a consensus you can't hope to fight. Unless you can demonstrate mainstream media coverage of the game, it's pretty much right out. Captainktainer * Talk 02:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment You're turning the verifiability requirements up side down. But, the major way to prove online notability is to to show that the game, in this case, if referred to by many websites. And, at the moment, the major tool for this is google. -- Koffieyahoo 02:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Librarian, can you show me how you proved that A Tribute to Linkin Park was non notable? - Hahnch e  n 02:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I can't show you, but I can easily explain: I looked up each band on Google checked their notability against WP:MUSIC as if I was researching their notability and then once I had ascertained than none of the bands were notable in that sense of the word I voted. I didn't merely type in google "Medieval Diplomacy" and based upon that vote for deletion.  I just believe that people should put more effort into establishing cases for deletion because it is a serious matter. -- Librarianofages 03:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Deletions (in my opinion) should involve research, but not for nebulous 'notability'. Instead, we should be looking for sources, but the burden of evidence still lies with the keep votes, not with the delete ones, to provide them. Z iggurat 03:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sure the nominator can't show you either. But if you had say used the same kind of reasoning as you did for the tribute album, going on Google and looking at WP:WEB and Notability (software), then you'd have arrived at a different conclusion.  Nominations may be poorly researched, but that doesn't mean your vote should be. - Hahnch  e  n 03:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me explain: I punch in the term in google and I at least look at the first 30 or so hits. If those are irrelevant or from other non-notable websites, then I put the game up for deletion (after having prod-ed it first). But, I doubt if I should mention that all in my AfD. Then some problems with what you mention: (1) I don't see the current AfD would fall under WP:WEB (2) Notability (software) is just proposed, hence I think you should sustain an AfD with it. -- Koffieyahoo 04:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. Zos 02:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above - Hahnch e  n 02:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless reliable third party sources are added (I couldn't find any) per verifiability requirements. nn Z iggurat 02:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn, also advertisement. No notability stated or implied, beyond the fact it exists.  While I do not believe Google should be the final arbiter of notability, I also was unable to find any non-trivial articles by non-involved third parties.  Tychocat 02:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete It's an online game. It would need major mention on Google to be notable. Danny Lilithborne 02:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. -- Avillia (Avillia me!) 02:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, google test used above actually overstates the case a bit. Only about 300 unique hits, and a large number of those have nothing to do with the game as 'medieval diplomacy' is used extensively when discussing, hmmm, medieval diplomacy.  No other real indications that this is popular outside a small group of user that I could find - would be willing to reconsider if someone else could find better indicators.  Kuru  talk  03:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Because of the nature of the game it would be difficult to ascertain that, that's why I think it would be better to act conservatively and keep this article, Remember Wiki is not a paper encyclopedia, we are not limited for space! -- Librarianofages 03:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, I respectfully disagree. It's an online game, not a Russian board game from the 1930's. The nature of the game should lend itself to simple verification of the claims.  This one does not seem to based on the examination of the search results and casual exploration of some of the hits; but I will be receptive to anything interesting you turn up.  Kuru  talk  03:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, no indication that this online game meets WP:WEB or Notability (software). Lacking third-party coverage, article appears promotional, for which Wikipedia is not.  Barno 04:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:WEB. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 04:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- Big  top  ( tk | cb | em | ea ) 05:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Google news says zero hits - I don't like it one bit, eh? WilyD 15:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as this site does not meet WP:WEB... Yes, I am aware it is not a website, but as an online game this is the closest guideline and I think it should be held to it. I will say though that the number of google hits it generates is completely meaningless to this discussion, in my opinion. What matters is that it does not meet the guidelines for inclusion of online material.--Isotope23 16:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete no attempt to assert notability. Alphachimp   talk  19:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. Dionyseus 22:43, 10 July 2006 (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.