Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OGame


 * 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, as there is at least one third party reliable source,, discussing this game extensively (the other German-language reference, , mentions this game only in passing, stating that a version of OGame for wireless telephones is being developed, in the context of an article concerning the release of a version of a different game for wireless telephones.) There does, however, appear to be a consensus that, due to the popularity of the game, it is probable that additional coverage in third-party, reliable sources can be found. John254 01:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

OGame

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Online war game. While it may have lots of players, it seems like there is no press coverage. I don't think this game meets WP:WEB. -- Ben 00:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me be clear. I play this game. I like this game. I just don't think that now is the right time to have an article about it. If there are reliable, secondary sources out there... I'm very open to being wrong on this one. -- Ben 00:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of computer or video games-related deletions.   —-- Ben 00:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Removing Ogame for wiki is a good idea because only Ogame administrators edit it. They don't allow info or links or comments that they don't approve of even though it is relevant to ogame. Thats not fair to haw only half of the info about ogame thats really out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.51.22 (talk) 03:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I received a comment very similar to this on my talk page here. While I don't buy into the philosophy espoused by the comment, I do think that an article with no sources might tend to produce an effect like this. -- Ben 05:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm one of those guys who edits the site dedicated to cheat devices that the above continues to post. The site is also in large a copyright violation. I dont think we need a wiki for it either anyway if the developers of wikipedia couldn't care less about illegal sites being linked to from their site (yes, the site is actually a violation of copyright laws. That and why would you wanna push so hard to link a site that hosts devices used to cheat the honest players? I personally want to be able to play without random kids cheating to get ahead of me. Yours truely.... a NON gameadmin GFasian 05:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * While I am not going to address the issues apparently exitant between the editors of the article, I am going to advocate deletion per insufficient notability at this time, with no prejudice for re-creation if these demands are later met. Also, without taking a stand on the issue of validity of the copyright violations claimed by the poster above (as it's really not my bailiwick), there is, in any case, cause for some kind of action. --Agamemnon2 05:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In response to mr. 69.37.51.22, an ex player now of uni 9: He is just advertising his site, promoting cheats and trying to destroy the comunity. I'm sure many people agree that cheating in a multiplayer game is lame and harmfull for it. Looking at the history shows lots of people editing his link, not just admins. And by the way lets not forget that the admins work for free here and are member of the ogame comunity that wanted to get involved and make a difference. Last time I checked wiki's response to this kind of advertising (you do know it's his own website?) was to black list it, not delete the topic. Just my 2 cents. 89.137.42.254 07:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, though I personally hate it, Ogame is unbelievably popular; probably one of the most, if not the most popular browser-based online game in the world. I would think at this point one would need to give proof of non-notability, rather than ask for proof of notability, to justify the article's deletion. — Da rk •S hik ari [T] 07:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep from someone who never ever even considered playing Ogame, but knows it is insanely popular. --Ouro (blah blah) 10:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Dark Shikari and Ouro cover my exact reasoning. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 11:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you make ogameblog.com the bad guy for having a couple articles on "illegal programs" not literal cheats; Then what do you think of geologists, fleet admirals, technocrats...??? if you pay you can legally "cheat"!!! Ogameblog does not promote cheating! However it is a site about EVERYTHING OGAME and cheating is only one aspect of it. Wether you like it or not IT IS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.30.245 (talk • contribs)


 * the guy with ogameblog is trying to make money and sell t-shirts. If you want real guides to ogame look at the other links. Cheating is only part of the game after you promote it. Besides that site violates copyright rules. It's not to be allowed.
 * just a though: lets spam every game article on wiki with advices on how to cheat and ruin it for everybody else. j/k. Pointing out the obvious. Some things don't need to be shown in a public encliclopedia.
 * we obviously can't delete the article beause of a lonely cheater that tryes to advertise his website. It's him against the world —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.137.42.254 (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * why delete it? Because of that stupid ogameblog cheater? Forget about him. How can you delete an article about the most popular browser game out there? 212.62.97.21 14:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The site would be ok if it wasn't for the cheating, and copyright violations. As it stands now though the continual addition of his site is pathetic. I guess I am more on the wall about deleting though. I will continue to remove his link however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GFasian (talk • contribs) 14:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Refocus attempt. I have the feeling that I'm spitting in the wind here, but I think I should at least say this... This discussion has absolutely nothing to do with any external links that are or aren't in the article!!! This discussion is about whether or not the subject of this article meets WP:WEB. The only arguments that address this (so far) are "it's very popular." If you would like to talk about the issues with the external links, that discussion should be taking place over here. If you would like to talk about how much you like OGame... that goes over here. If you think the subject of the article meets WP:WEB (and you have read WP:WEB) then please explain how. Here. Thanks, guys. -- Ben 14:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Heise online called it "Europe's largest browser-based MMOG" (last paragraph, it's in German) - that's got to be pretty notable, no? That being said, I think the article needs to be cleaned up significantly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M2Ys4U (talk • contribs)


 * Kepp having 2,000,000 accounts for an online, browser game would denote some form of notability (Yes I know popularity != notability) I have added a reference to support that number of accounts too - Fosnez 02:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for adding the reference. Thanks for noting that popularity is not notability. I regret that labusinessjournal.org is not a reliable source. From here we have the following: "Here you can publish your articles and add up to 3 links to your website(s)." Not much credibility there. -- Ben 05:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's popular and therefore notable rather than just some random small website. BTW I'm involved here because I looked ogame up on Wikipedia to see what was said here - was surprised to see it listed for deletion. zoney &#09827; talk 15:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I've heard of this game before knowing about the existence of it's article here, so I suppose notability must be asserted; of course, this reason may be unreliable, since my case could maybe be one in a million. ♠  TomasBat   23:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Response I'm really glad that you had heard of the subject before you saw the article on wikipedia. That's cool. But I don't think that is a criteria set out by WP:N or WP:WEB. -- Ben 17:49, 15 September 2007 (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.