Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OGame (2nd 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   no consensus to delete. - Philippe 02:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

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

this page has been nominated for deletion before, and it was kept with only one source(which I can no longer find). however this source is/was only being used to back up one line in the entire page, I cannot find another source which would pass WP:RS. I believe the page fails WP:WEB as it is not notable and the page has almost no info which is not WP:FANCRUFT. Several tags have been placed on the page over these concerns and from what I can see they have been removed over time without the issues being address. One of the points in the original AfD (in September) was to give the article time, I believe enough time has passed without adequate improvement. John .n-  IRL  22:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. The current sources are two primary sources (one a forum link), two not in English, and one brief review that is not close to a genuinely reliable source.  Tags don't manage to attract genuine sources, so deleting is appropriate now. 2005 (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Concerning the review which is cited from labusinessjournal.org. It appears users can submit there own articles for the purpose of increasing link numbers. See here. John  .n-  IRL  00:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The old source that is now a 404 is available at the internet archive: . It's in German, though. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also throws a lot of g-news hits, but they're in German as well, so not sure if they are relevant. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Non-English references are as valid as English ones, preferably with a quote of the referenced portion and a translation. Otherwise it'd be awfully difficult to write about remote cultures, local phenomena, etc. - not to mention that most of en.wiki's traffic actually comes from non-native English-speaking countries. Flag down a German-speaking gamer and this problem will be solved. --Kiz o r  13:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong- not saying they're not valid, I just can't tell. You're right, a German speaker would make things a lot easier. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Many of these g-news links are forum posts(it seems anyway, cant look at them all), and those from game sites are mostly commenting on the account numbers for the game. Not much information which could be used to expand the article. John  .n-  IRL  13:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: OGame seems to have a lot of reviews around. None of them seem to be "professional" (I mean published by games magazines) however, and IGN and other sites' policy is not to include browser games as for what I have seen. Examples for the reviews include and . I don't know if they qualify as valid sources. The official forum is the only official place where players are informed about things. Forum links are not seemingly accepted and one can't reference the main site because it doesn't have any information. As for the notability: it seems that the game is discussed a lot around the internet. Travian is even more notable than OGame and those references are not much better. I'm ready to remove most of the gameplay section because its impossible to reference that and the information there doesn't really belong here, I admit. I now ask you: can the aforementioned kinds of sources be used as references? Nyme (talk) 07:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Those two reviews are user submitted, so not wp:rs. And the forum sites only really reference in-universe info which the page shouldn't really have. John .n-  IRL  13:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you say that "forum sites only really reference in-universe info"? Don't you see that the ref I used points to the game rules, which technically are not in-universe information? Well, there the usefulness as a source ends. But I think that may be used as a source. Nyme (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Game rules arn't really far from in-universe(I know they are different), but what the wiki article needs is information about development and reception aswell as gameplay. If the only thing the article can say beyond "2 million accounts" is gameplay/rules information, then it is essentially a gameguide. And the German sources dont seem to provide much information which would benefit the article in this sense. I'll keep looking though. John  .n-  IRL  16:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Stubify - I'm going out on a limb here, but I know that the game was incredibly popular for a while, especially in German regions. I'd suggest removing a lot of the manual or strategy guide information, possibly through a transwiki to Strategywiki. Other than that, I'd suggest that the sources would support a stubification, possibly supported with a smidgeon of WP:IAR. Other than that, if someone could find a suitable article to move/merge to, I'd support that, but Browser Based MMORPGs are still a relatively unresearched and undocumented concept. Gazimoff Write Read 12:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strip - Completely agree; take it down to what can be referenced from those German sources. If no independent parties care to comment on the gameplay and other game content, then neither should we. Marasmusine (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strip - I agree on this too. It is clearly notable and therefore should be worth its article, but I do agree on that the gameplay section may be removed. Merge could be done if there was an article of Gameforge, but I still strongly support preserving the article. Nyme (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and strip if necessary, per Gazimoff. User:Krator (t c) 13:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, concerning the German language sources, I cannot find any that would go beyond "a brief summary of the nature of the content" (wp:Web).


 * Keep, the game has over 3,000,000 players throughout the community, which is of clear significance enough to be a wikipedia article. None of the game manuals need to be there, so strip if need be, but the article itself should still exist. --Dark dude (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, the number of accounts a site has is not a proof of notability. John  .n-  IRL  18:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Lets say a site has 100 million different IP adresss, but since number of accounts isnt notabiltibility, then thats stupid.Number of accounts does prove notability. (Note, I know this will ne strikenthrough becasuse this is an IP,but I forgot my password, and I didint put in my email adress lol)72.138.216.89 (talk) 21:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: For a topic with 25300000 Google hits, it seems strange that there are not more independent, reliable English-language sources. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 22:40, 14 May 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.