Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Netrek


 * 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   no consensus.  Sandstein  06:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Netrek
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article does not seem to establish any notability for the subject. It might benefit from trimming the long explanation of the mechanics of the game and merging into a general list of Star Trek games. Alastairward (talk) 18:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Stubbify and migrate to List of text-based Star Trek games. Makes a dubious claim of notability that might be subsantiable. --EEMIV (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If there isn't the manpower/interest to create a List of text-based Star Trek games -- or if such a list wouldn't be an appropriate target for this article to be stubbified and merged into -- I'd be happy with its deletion. --EEMIV (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Given GameSpot and Wired articles below, merge-to X or retention seems appropriate. Either way, needs to stubbified to get rid of gameguide dreckcruft. --EEMIV (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Netrek and Star Trek are very different games. Putting them in the same article would confuse matters. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into Star Trek (text game). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkmurray  (talk • contribs)
 * Comment reading the article shows that it has provided claims of notability. Netrek was the probably the third Internet game, the first Internet team game, and is the oldest Internet game still actively played (as of 2008).  76.66.202.139 (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, I said notability had not been established, which is entirely different to claiming it. Any cites? Alastairward (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep, widely played by thousands of users at universities all over the world, widely distributed in Unix libraries to this day, widely referenced both in print and on the 'net. Notability can be trivially established in Google Books, for instance. Alastairward's apparent lack of even the tiniest amount of effort in checking his AfDs gives me cause for concern. Just as silence cannot be taken as an admission of guilt, bad referencing cannot be used as a statement on notability. Please stop wasting all of our time with these frivolous AfDs. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, the burden is on those who edited wikipedia to add material to this article, not me. Alastairward (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But there is the burden on you to not waste people's time - I'm here to add content, not argue about it. This AfD, and the series of related ones you filed, are a waste of time. In the interest of avoiding this in the future, let me explain why that is the case.
 * On the wiki, "notability" is generally synonymous with "does really exist". We didn't create the guidelines to eliminate every article that isn't properly referenced, we made it to help remove articles on self-published BS topics. It is similar in concept to SPS or other tools - these aren't systems that lead to an AfD for everything that doesn't match one of the thousands of rules on the wiki (or there would be nothing left), they are systems that you can use as a tool when trying to delete articles that are clearly bogus. If someone writes an article about his neighbor's kid's garage band, that's when you might want to pull NOT out of your holster. That would be an example of "clearly bogus", an article that does not add to the sum of human knowledge.
 * The "does really exist" can be demonstrated in any number of ways, and that's why the google test can be used to establish notability. Since this topic clearly passes the google test, notability is established. That's pretty much end-of-story for this case. But I encourage you to be sure you truly understand the spirit of the notability guidelines, not just the letter, before spamming the AfD with every article that isn't reffed. Use your common sense, that's why we have it.Maury Markowitz (talk)
 * "waste people's time"? There's no obligation to edit, you know. If you don't want to participate in an AfD, don't. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What is this "google test"? Are we meant to award notability on the basis of number of hits? Alastairward (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * MM, the notion that "notability" is generally synonymous with "does really exist" is a specious conflation of WP:GNG with WP:V. --EEMIV (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the policies and guidelines very much do define the exclusion of unreferenced content, hence WP:NOR, which states "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." Articles have to show siginificant real-world context via independent sources; mere search results of any kind are neither "directly related" to the subject nor verifiable. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * netrek.org clearly matches both of those criterion. But why are you talking about NOR now? Are you really sure you understand the wikilawyering you're quoting at me? Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * netrek.org is the official site and therefore a primary source, which means it doesn't establish notability; this is entirely what WP:IS is about. The fundamental issue is, this article needs reliable sources, and I'm failing to see where a single one is. Without sources, articles get deleted; this is why we have policies on inclusion, not exclusion. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So first it was NOT, then it was NOR, and now it's IR. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's all of those things apparently! It's the primary source, of course it will tout it's own notability. We need an independent, verifiable source. Why not provide some? Alastairward (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Will several hundred do? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No; merely being a book or a search result does not make something useful as a reliable source. We cannot cite a Google results page due to verifiability, and therefore we cannot use them to verify notability, either. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are conflicting the form of the results with the results themselves. This game is mentioned in hundreds of different real-world sources. All of them meet NOT, V and RS. I have said my bit, repeatedly, and I am leaving it to the seven-day limit to close this. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * None of them have been verified; merely saying "I think all these books can be used as reliable sources" does nothing to show how they are reliable. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. I'll let my co-admins pass judgement on the veracity of that statement. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments like that make me question why the hell you're an admin. "haha, your argument is obviously untrue" isn't a very mature way to respond to things, last time I checked. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've looked at some of the Google Books results. While they verify the existence of the game, none that I saw present (or could be used to substantiate) a claim of notability. --EEMIV (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NRVE states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability", and "Substantial coverage... constitutes... evidence of notability". It is very existence of mentions in secondary sources is what defines NOT. GNG states that if you meet V more than once, then there is a presumption of NOT. You appear to be stating your agreement that these sources do indeed meet V more than once, so that would imply meeting NOT. Perhaps I misunderstand your concern? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the disconnect is in my notion of verifiability -- for me, it simply means, there's evidence this isn't a hoax; it exists. The second sentence of WP:NRVE calls for substantial coverage, and the significant coverage called for in the preceding section makes clear the cited reliable sources discuss the topic in detail. The point of my previous post is that none of the Google Books sources I looked at go into the topic in detail; they merely verify that, "Yes, this game exists". --EEMIV (talk) 23:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right. I should have added this Wired article and this Gamespot one seem to cover that definition as well. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think the article should be fixed with proper references added as necessary. If anyone finds this link useful, they're a bunch of old bookmarks I had on the subject when I ran a netrek server and was working on client enhancements.  Includes a link to a project at MIT involving Netrek as well:  .  66.11.179.30 (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I did some cleaning up on the article, removed all the gameplay-related trash. --Collinp6 (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And restored. I was in the midst of major edits. May I assume from the thread you are the former 66.11.179.30? Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no Wikipedia account and have not modified the article yet. 66.11.179.30 (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I think I'm done with it for now, so go nuts. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:25, 27 May 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.