Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pardus (computer game)


 * 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. Single-purpose accounts aside, the question of reliable third-party sources has not been addressed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Pardus (computer game)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Procedural nomination. Originally prodded by, and deleted, then restored at DRV. Previous AFD nomination is here. Wafulz 21:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

When did I prod the article? It was done by icerainbow. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 22:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * edit: I seem to have mindlessly (whether or not you believe me is up to you) sub'd the template here. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 22:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I've defended the article from vandalism and defended the article at the last AFD. The game has only gotten more notable/reported on since then so I have no reasons to delete it (yes, it does have its problems but those could be solved with some effective copywriting). --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 08:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep If it got prodded and restored, it's probably notable enough.  NA SC AR Fan 24 (radio me!) 21:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. Consensus can change. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, prods are restored whenever they are contested. It has nothing to do with notability.-Wafulz 21:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As Wafulz says, undeletion is standard procedure when a prod is contested. It doesn't say anything about the notability of the subject. A  ecis Brievenbus 21:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:SNOWBALL The article has sources, content, and seems to be fairly NPOV.EvanCarroll 21:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The last time I looked at this article - I thought it looked familiar when it turned up on DRV - it didn't string three words together in a row that were verifiable from the legitimate sources it cited (which, then as now, were nearly lost amid the content-free promotional links). I'll try again later tonight when I have some more time, but I somehow doubt anything's changed. &mdash;Cryptic 21:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've reread the article and the provided sources (through machine translation). At this point, the sum total overlap between what we have now and a properly sourced article would read "Pardus is a online multiplayer science fiction game implemented in Flash."  (This completely sets aside the question of the sources' reliability, which I don't feel qualified to assess as a nonspeaker.)  The article has been tagged with a request for better sourcing for months with no improvement whatsoever.  As we have neither a need nor interest in merely reproducing promotional material from the game's manual, the article should be purged of all non-independently-verifiable material if kept.  Since that would leave us with a single-sentence substub, delete. &mdash;Cryptic 05:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Leaning towards delete Abstain. There's really only one non-trivial reliable source (the German IT one, assuming it isn't just a blog). The other sources mentioned in the previous AFD are a collection of screenshots, a student newspaper, and a mention in a newsletter.-Wafulz 21:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't read German so I have no idea what's going on with the sources provided, so I'm not really qualified to make a judgement call here. Can someone check de.wikipedia and see if they've had anything on this. I know it's not entirely relevant since they have different guidelines, but it'd be nice to know.-Wafulz 22:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep As you can see above, the recent suggestion to delete this entry was initiated by User:TheSeer.


 * TheSeer has been attacking Pardus for some time. He hosts the website parduswatch.com, which is little more than anti-Pardus criticisms. Therefore I do not feel TheSeer’s suggestion to delete this entry was objective or unbiased.


 * It was decided over a year ago that Pardus was notable enough to remain in Wikipedia; since that time Pardus has only grown in both members and media coverage. I see absolutely no reason to delete this entry at this time. Utchka 21:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC) — Utchka (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * It would be better if you provided evidence of growing media coverage- Wikipedia is not static in its content or decisions. Also, try to assume good faith about TheSeer.-Wafulz 21:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is a link that shows increasing media coverage (look at dates, if you cannot read german, sorry) http://www.pardus.at/index.php?section=about_coverage. The most recent article from Telekommunikations & IT Report states the number of active users has tripled in the last year. Last year Pardus had about 5000 members, currently over 20,000 (this can be verified by emailing the developers). Also, I am not trying to attack TheSeer; I am only trying to state that I feel the suggestion to remove the entry was biased, and why I feel that way. My apologies if it appeared otherwise. Utchka
 * that link is from the Pardus site itself, which does not satisfy WP:V. You need to find an independant source to back up that assertion. -- Kesh 22:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, it's a list of sources. &mdash;Cryptic 22:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. But we'd need to follow up and actually check each of those to make sure they're relevant to this article/discussion. Simply linking to the self-promotion page of the site does not itself satisfy WP:V. Nitpicky, I know, but I won't take the company's word for it that these are relevant quotations. Context can be very important. -- Kesh —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - There was nothing wrong with the first AfD, and the project has only increased in notability since. — xDanielx T/C 23:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * DELETE. WHERE ARE THE RELIABLE THIRD PARTY SOURCES FOR THIS ARTICLE?  THERE ARE NONE.   Bur nt sau ce  17:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete not seeing enough reliable sources to support an article. The German article comes closest, but probably isn't quite a reliable enough source for our purposes and isn't enough to support the whole article by itself anyway. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The game is popular enough, it got publicity in both print media and online magazines. The article mostly describes game mechanics which can be verified by the game's manual. All in all it seems NPOV and accurate. Would be able to say more if the prodder gave a reason for the deletion request. VikingCommand 23:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC) — VikingCommand (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * AFDs exist to build consensus on whether or not an article should be kept. They are not a vote. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 05:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin, VikingCommand has just signed up today and has only edited three game related AFDs and Utchka signed up just after the article was deleted due to a prod by . --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 05:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've been on wikipedia for years, but have been unwilling to use my old account lately due security reasons. I'd be happy to identify my 'main' wikipedia account to anyone interested, but privately. Utchka 07:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Just signed up or not, they have good points: the information can be verified by the game's manual, there are independant sources (as good as any other online game entry), it is noteable enough and it should stand as it did after the prod last year, for the same reasons.Sindrii 07:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC) — Sindrii (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * 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.