Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar Empire (second 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 delete. After another week of non-discussion... it still has no links to any third-party coverage. Sandstein 19:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Solar Empire (second nomination)

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

The game claims to be one of the oldest games around, and was kept in the last AfD based on a lot of arguments revolving around "this number is big" and bizzarely enough, an Alexa rank of 378k somehow benifitted it. Anyway, I could not find any reliable sources- pretty much everything was user-submitted. Issues with verifiability and WP:WEB. I've tried the following Google searches:, , Wafulz 04:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:WEP, no sources in article to believe its notable. Sins of a Solar Empire is sometimes just called solar empire and seems to be giving it undue attention.--155.144.251.120 05:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as a failure of WP:WEB, no secondary sources provided or apparent from a glance at the above google results. Interested parties have had since early August to scrape together some sources - either they aren't there or open source projects have a magical policy/guideline shield (I don't think so). Previous AFD had few participants, though one of whom was a developer of this software (unless I'm reading it wrong) - WP:COI. If secondary sources are provided then I'd be very happy to change my stance, but that seems unlikely.

Regardless of the software's age, WP remains a tertiary source and requires secondary sources so it isn't just repeating what is already available from the primary source. If the MMOG/Indie game communities are that bothered about featuring on WP then they need to band together and form reliable review sites like Game Tunnel, which can give the software some critical review and in turn give us something to write about. The ball is in their court. QuagmireDog 12:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In fairness I must point out that though two developers were involved in the last AFD, only one voted and both were extremely above-board. Whilst this is obviously not ideal in AFD or article maintainence, I don't want to give the impression that there was anything shady going on because I don't believe that was the case or the intention. QuagmireDog 16:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The sheer number of forks would not exist if this was insignificant. -- Strangelv 16:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Could an admin re-list this AFD for further discussion? What it 'is' is one thing, it certainly isn't a single-screen flash game, I think this needs further discussion. QuagmireDog 16:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Cbrown1023 17:43, 27 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.