Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shogun Wars (Online 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. Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 17:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Shogun Wars (Online Game)

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

The game was previously deleted here while still in beta. I couldn't find any reliable sources via Google, and it doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB. Verifiability issues. Posting a pre-emptive anon-vote warning. Wafulz 03:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion means just that, deletion without a five-day AFD process, nuke on sight. Recreation of previously deleted material is eligible for speedy deletion. If players wish to refer their friends to the game then that is exactly what they should do, point them to the Shogun Wars website so they can create an account. Video games in general are not under the microscope here, there is no reason that VGs cannot be in WP which is why that hasn't been said - Half Life got on the front page because it is a featured article, IE is an article of the highest quality on WP. All featured articles are loaded with secondary sources, that's what WP is about. If yourself or any other contributor wishes to keep this article, Valthalas, then I'd suggest you try to find some secondary sources (if they exist), because it's the lack of them which is the problem here. QuagmireDog 12:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Could not find anything that could be considered a source that is independent of the company itself and thus has no notibility (Notability (software)). Game has only 800 accounts active. Has WP:COI problems, as creator seems to be author based on edit comments.--155.144.251.120 04:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Creator of site was NOT the author of this Wiki; I was. Creator re-named Wiki for capitalization.  It's a good, up-and-coming game, why not keep it?Dp76764 04:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said in the nomination- verifiability from reliable sources and WP:WEB. Also the capitalization is wrong too. It should be Shogun Wars (online game). I have absolutely no idea why it wasn't just made at Shogun Wars seeing as that article name isn't taken.... --Wafulz 04:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Up and coming? Quite possibly.  But we are an encyclopaedia whihc requires reliable non-trivial independent secondary sources, so you'll have to come back when it's actually up and arrived. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:WEB, no assertion of notability or secondary sources. Nothing has changed since the last AFD except that the game has a larger userbase and the developer's blog is encouraging players to 'fight' for the article in any AFDs that occur (see Jan 8 entry), missing the point. The amount of players which would deem this game notable is debatable, though 800 active players for a product that is being given away on the web doesn't leave much room for discussion. Get some reliable sources and we can build a balanced article, until then I'd suggest Shogun Wars' fans refrain from adding an entry and that any relisting without secondary sources is speedied. QuagmireDog 14:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This bothers me, QuagmireDog... secondary sources? The terms is boggling since in any research, you would rather have primary resources.  So whatever you mean is unclear.  I find much shorter, less interesting articles all over wiki, ever hit that random article button? and do not see these articles backed by "reliable sources".  Many wiki articles beg for sources or do not cite any at all.  So your argument makes little sense to me; "any relisting without secondary sources is speedied."?  Is this a jargon that is spoken somewhere I am unfamiliar with?  There is no product given away, it is played on the internet, much like Wiki is not given away, it is used and enjoyed by millions.  Both SW and Wiki are free, therefore neither gives away a product, but offer a service.  If it were selling a product, would this not be an advertisement and therefore misguided in advertising on Wiki?  The article is, in part, simply the beginnings of an explanation for players to refer friends to and say, this is what I enjoy.  There are many MMPORGs or whatever they are called scattered all over Wiki as well as just games in general.  In fact, the game Half Life got on the front page roughly the same day this article appeared.  As for comment above about SW designers making this article.  Neither the article creator nor myself are designers, we are players.  Wafulz faults the capitalization as if that is something to delete article for.  Note in the next comment, the person cannot spell which (JzG).  Do we condemn that person or fix it?  Hardly a reason for deletion.  I am afraid I see little in the Delete comments that really merits deleting an article that several people have already worked on and argued to keep.  I will note one thing fyi, just so you understand my vehemence.  I enjoy the game and in fact won the first age of the game under the name of Tobionitaru.  Valthalas 21 January 2007
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 18:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia is a tertiary source, taking information from reliable secondary sources and some core details from the primary, original research is not usable. No secondary sources and no appropriate award is a failure of WP:WEB, which is why the article stands to be deleted and is the only reason needed for deletion.
 * Some comments for Valthalas:
 * I pointed out capitalization as a note, in case the editor wanted to create a page sometime in the future- I never once suggested it as a reason for deletion. The article should actually just be at Shogun Wars since there is no article under that name.
 * Using the game, its players, and its website as the only sources actually violates No original research and makes it impossible to create a neutral article.
 * The deletion comments are actually founded on Wikipedia policies: verifiability and No original research
 * Before you compare this article to that of Half-Life 2, please examine Half_life_2--Wafulz 20:10, 21 January 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.