Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nexus War (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 d e lete. east. 718 at 01:47, January 21, 2008

Nexus War
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable MMORPG. Was created at Nexus war but deleted. Keilana talk 13:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. It looks like this actually should be the third nomination. It appears the result of the first afd was no consensus, and the second was delete. Xymmax (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions.   --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per CSD G4 Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, changes were made to more accomadate the rules. CSD G4 doesn't relate. 71.141.139.105 (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 14:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable sources appearing in a web search, the Escapist article brought up in another AFD is literally a passing mention of no use, there's one possible magazine source brought up in another AFD but one isn't enough to balance an article. Contributors interested in writing an article about Nexus War should scout out sources (if they exist) before adding it back. Someoneanother 14:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The game may be non-notable to most people(I admit, I play it). However, I believe it to be better long-term to leave the wiki-page in existence, with the caveat that more sources are to be listed as they become available. The article itself needs to note the beta nature of the game, and the low userbase. As well, there is absolutely NO chance of creating a decent article from several bad deleted attempts at one so long as there is constant deletion. As a member of the Nexus War community, I can tell you there is a want for a Wikipedia page. Currently, however, popular sentiment is closer to (I paraphrase) "wiki-nazis don't play the game, so they just delete it as being non-notable". Surely we pride ourselves on being inclusive, rather than exclusive? The apathy with which this (rather good) game is treated frankly appalls me. Keep in mind that problems like these are one of the major reasons that people dislike Wikipedia - don't beat up on the helpful contributors. I would rather not get into the "look at this less-notable article, etc" game, as that is a sure road to madness(I could name a few articles that qualify). --EugeneKay 21:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Notability isn't a measure of how much anyone likes X, it's whether or not X measures up to the notability guideline. The article should be reinstated when sources appear, if they appear. WP is a tertiary source which does not allow original research, by its very nature we need secondary sources to craft half-decent articles. The quality of writing is not under question, whether it passes the inclusion guideline is. Deleted articles can be reinstated by administrators, there's no need to write from scratch but there is a need to get those sources first, it's not much to ask that Nexus Wars measures up to the same sourcing standards expected from every WP article. Contributors putting the article up for deletion or agreeing it should be deleted are assuming good faith - constant recreation is ignoring the bold-typed warning on the creation page "Articles that do not cite reliable published sources are likely to be deleted" and causes these drawn out debates. If Nexus Wars players are labouring under the misconception that being a player has anything to do with it, they need to look again at why the article gets deleted. The whole point of WP is that you don't need to be an 'expert' to write about something, you use the primary source and informed secondary sources to do the talking. Someoneanother 09:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Im not logged in so im not going to "vote", but i will leave a comment. Dont think it would make much of a difference either way, but i need to get this off my chest. Im going to say that an insistence on dead tree sources for online media is unfair, not just to this article, but much of the content of the internet. Many of these websites may have thousands of followers, large numbers of interesting innovations and be otherwise worthy of an article here, but this dead tree standard has them stumped because mainstream publishing does not like to do stories about them, more than likely because there arent a terribly large number of magazines covering the subject and they have to meet a certain level of profitability which printing extra pages doesnt really help. Its because of this rather obvious problem that faces most online media that you really should lean towards inclusionism, rather than deltionism as you have been doing for quite some time. Thats not to say you should let everything stay, just that you should apply common sense on a case by case basis instead of conducting purges, the likes of which have been performed against the webcomics community in the last couple of years. Its probably a good idea to have a seperate set of notability guidelines written up to cover online media simply because its patently obvious the existing ones do not treat it fairly. This media seems to be as good a place as any to apply WP:IAR, specifically with regards to Notability. --121.44.124.196 (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure where you've got this idea that published sources = paper-based. Websites are perfectly acceptable and for online content are usually the most prolific. They still have to be reliable though. Common sense has been applied, repetition of the primary source is not a balanced article. WP is an encyclopedia not a webcomics directory - a lot of noise was generated because fans seem to think that splurging plot details makes a comic notable and passes as an encyclopedia article. Online entertainments don't suddenly vanish into the ether when their articles are deleted, if anyone is interested in covering these comics/games/gruops then nobody is stopping them from adding information in a more appropriate place, the web is full of sites catering to these things.Someoneanother 10:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - "Non-notable MMORPG." You have not convinced me of this. --Ircgeht (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Read WP:N, notability is not a measure of how much something is liked, it's an inclusion guideline with specific criteria. Someoneanother 08:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * — Ircgeht (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 07:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof to create or maintain an article is on editors adding to it. That burden of proof seems not to be in the article. Anyway, point is, the task is to articulate the topic's notability, not for the nominator to show that it isn't notable. --EEMIV (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as per EugeneKay. 67.186.240.179 (talk) Kalir, from Uncyclopedia 03:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * User doesn't have suffrage? --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 07:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, as per Ekashp. However, the article does need improvement and perhaps cleaning. --Cypris (talk) 06:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of articles need improvement, but that's not what's being asked for here. Reliable sources are needed to demonstrate notability and to create an encyclopedia article rather than a summary of gameplay. If that's all the article can be then readers can find that information on Nexus Wars' homepage. Someoneanother 08:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Besides the WP:ILIKEIT players of this game above, I do not see this game as being notable. Furthermore, I doubt it ever will be. In the genre of text based MMORPGs, there are very few sources around, and the hopeful comments above that there will be are a filibuster. Finally, the article was deleted last time, with the note that sources may become available, and that the article may be recreated at that time. No sources have appeared now, a year later. User:Krator (t c) 12:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, I completely disagree with it being a "not-notable MMORPG". You have failed to list any views on why it isn't notable. Rather than deleting it, you could suggest ways to improve it. Give the community some time to improve and add sources to show it's notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metnik (talk • contribs) 15:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the 3rd nom (after two previous iterations), there's been plenty of time to find sources. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 07:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. I like MMORPGs, although I've never played this one. I understand the dynamics quite well. However, I can't find a reliable source for this game, and NO ONE who has commented has done so. In reference to the comment(s) above, let me be clear - in Wikipedia terms notability means nontrivial coverage in reliable sources. If you can come up with a couple of reliable sources (as described at the link) the article will survive. If you don't, it's likely to be deleted.  Additionally, on the article talk page an editor has offered to adopt the article to improve it.  In response, this AfD will run for at least 5 days - that gives you three more days at the time I write this comment. If you can find a couple of reliable sources in that time, you can say "Look by your own rules NW is notable" and will likely be the end of it. Otherwise, well, you know... Xymmax (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - You have failed to list any views on why it isn't notable. 1) It hasn't recieved any attention from reliable gaming press. 2)Google search, with typical filters ("Nexus War" +MMORPG -wiki -forum) has only 82 hits; 318 with "game" instead of "MMORPG". 3) Article presents no material backed up with reliable references. I'll be the first to change my opinion to keep should a few good review / article sources appear. Marasmusine (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:GOOGLEHITS --75.31.211.128 (talk) 08:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:N. Someoneanother 09:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: The argument that it cannot achieve notability status when it is constantly deleted has merit; however, if it had any notable articles ever written about it, it would be hped that a previous veteran of this delete war would quickly add it, when the article gets re-built. --Revanche (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the "constantly deleted" argument. The last Afd was a bit more than one year ago. Surely that's enough time to marshal evidence of notability? Xymmax (talk) 03:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * An article is the product of sources, deletion of that product does not affect anyone's ability to search for sources or affect the existence of sources. Sources = article, it's that simple. Someoneanother 09:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Nexus War was reviewed and the creator interviewed in "Custom PC Magazine", 2007. Custom PC Magazine is a primarily a paper-based publication readily findable in UK newsagents, and has perfectly good journalistic standards: it should count as a) independent and b) reliable. It also lists the game in the top 10 games of that type. The article is also on the net at http://www.custompc.co.uk/features/102681/casual_gaming.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agema (talk • contribs) 13:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a great source, If there was another like that I'd switch to keep in a heartbeat. Someoneanother 16:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Though in fairness that is the magazine source which has been brought up before (previous AFD and a deletion review), we're still waiting for other sources :/ Someoneanother 16:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as per WP:N, the newly added source fits both "significant coverage" and "reliable source" criterions. While "multiple sources are generally preferred", it is not compulsory. I see no reason why this article shouldn't be allowed to stay. Cixilibrium (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not new, its existence was brought up before and at least one other source has been requested before the article was considered over the notability hurdle. Multiple sources may not be needed in some cases (it's a general encyclopedia, we could be talking about some historical machine) but for entertainment we need them for reception information and to put it above blurb/summarized instructions. The state of sources is exactly the same as it was a year ago and that's the crux of the problem. Someoneanother 15:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The above comment is fallacious. As per WP:N, "if a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic". I still see no reason why the article shouldn't be allowed to stay. Cixilibrium (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The source alone does not pass the notability guideline so N#temp is irrelevant. The state of sourcing has not changed since this was last deleted or presesnted for a deletion review. Someoneanother 01:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have already stated that the article meets WP:N criterions for all intents and purposes. If the sourcing has not changed since the last deletion review, I can only wonder why it was deleted in the first place. Cixilibrium (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't meet notability requirements because there aren't multiple, reliable and non-trivial sources. That's the reason why it was deleted and not restored, and that hasn't changed during the course of this AFD. Not having multiple sources is no less of an impediment than having unreliable sources or just trivial mentions - it still results in a subject which cannot be written about to a basic standard of encyclopedia article. Two out of three ain't good, in this case. The way forward is to bring the article back if and when more sources appear, back it comes, in go the sources and we're away. Someoneanother 01:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment A casual search found a few sources. I'll admit they're not terribly good sources(magazine, major site), but they are sources.
 * Online Games Inn - a MMO review/comparison site
 * Free Play - a review of the game on a blog.
 * Seibertton - Primarily a Transformers fan-site, has a review up.
 * EugeneKay 19:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If sources like those did the job this AFD would have closed a unanimous keep because there's stacks of them out there and several people discussing this have been trawling through them. OnlineGamesInn is just a funnel-site, typified by listing bog standard details about games, allowing visitors to vote yay or nay and then push advertising because of the traffic this generates. Sources like that serve no purpose, they aren't about providing content they're about providing links and their reliability (in WP terms) is zilch.
 * Free-play appears to be a personal blog with no credentials, the only difference between that and a gamefaqs reader review is who's hosting it. Examples of blogs which would make good sources would be sites like Game Set Watch (produced by writers for Gamasutra and Game Developer (magazine)).
 * The Seibertron source is a forum post, inherently undesirable, by a forum user. Seibertron may or may not be a reliable source for transformers, but its forum users' opinions of video games is neither here nor there in terms of reliably sourcing an article. It's good to see a NW supporter spreading the word, but it's not something we can do anything with.Someoneanother 22:33, 20 January 2008 (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.