Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spaceships of Eve Online (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   Delete and redirect to Eve Online. While the opinions are firmly divided by votecount, those wanting to keep the article only have suppositions that sources may be available. However, the article already had an AfD closed as no consensus, and since not one reliable independent source has been added (the one that looks reliable is in fact a blog post), and many of the sources given below are not about EVE Online at all, or not about the spaceships (e.g. "Synthetic Worlds", which is available through Google Books). This means that the delete opinions have more weight since the keep opinions have failed to substantiate their positive (the deletes can't prove a negative, of course). Fram (talk) 09:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Spaceships of Eve Online
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has been nominated for deletion before and failed to reach consensus. I feel that despite the improvements made, this article is a blatant violation of WP:NOTGUIDE. The article's topic has absolutely no notability in the real world--the contents are only notable within EVE, and primarily of interest to the game's player base. Other, better articles about the spaceships of EVE Online exist on EVE related wikis, and I don't see why we can't have the main article just direct readers to one of those if they have further interest in the topic. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. While lists of items etc., are generally to be avoided, per WP:GAMECRUFT point number 6: Sometimes a concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game. Since piloting the ships is basically the mainstay of the game, then as such an article featuring brief notes about the relative ship types should be perfectly acceptable, unlike before which was heavily over-detailed. TheChrisD Rants • Edits 09:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not essential to understanding the game. All the reader needs to know is that there are a variety of different ship sizes, plus t1, t2, and t3. That can be handled in the main article, with a link here for a more detailed explanation. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there's the potential for a compromise here. The list could be summarized and merged to the main Eve Online article. This article is short enough (~10k) that it wouldn't really lead to any devastating size issues, especially if it's tightened up a little. Randomran (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This reads like a game guide, and has no notability independent of the game itself. If the ships of Eve Online had real world significance outside the game, things might be different. Ray  Talk 09:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.  --  Ray  Talk 09:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, or merge to Eve Online as compromise: Wikipedia is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE, and moreover this entire article lacks WP:THIRDPARTY sources as required by WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:N. I couldn't so much as find the sources. However, it's pretty short, and there might be support that we cover it somewhere. At the main Eve Online article, there would be fewer policy problems with keeping this content. Randomran (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Millions of people play this game, so any key aspect about it, is valid for an article. If there is enough information to warrant a side article from the main article Eve Online then it should be done.   D r e a m Focus 
 * So at the risk of flagrantly violating WP:OTHER I'll note that there is no separate article on World of Warcraft classes. Incidentally only about 350k play--I should know, I'm one of them. Again, EVE wiki handles this better than we can or should. All readers need to know from us is that there are a variety of ship sizes and types, and we can give them the link to EVE wiki for more detailed info. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The notability of a subject doesn't automatically justify that of all things it constitutes. If there is insufficient reliably-sourced information, as with this article, then by all means it should be merged with its parent article. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia isn't a game guide. If people want to know every detail on the game, they can find it elsewhere. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per Dream and TheChrisD. Ikip (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Question: Would those arguing for keep be happy with a selective merge? TallNapoleon (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is going to be a merge, it's a full one or nothing. A selective merge removes the whole point of merging.  TheChrisD  Rants • Edits 09:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ...How? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be pretty easy to correct it if any information were lost. Merging is not the same as deletion, and you'd always have access to the history in order to make it right. This list is short enough that it would fit pretty well into the main article, or the gameplay of Eve Online article. Randomran (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 13,784 bytes is how long it is now. It wouldn't fit.  And yes, it is the same as deletion, since no one is likely find their way to the page with the redirect once nothing links to it to begin with, and read the history.  There is no reason why it shouldn't have its own page.  It is a key part of a notable work of fiction.   D r e a m Focus  17:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether or not someone can find their way to the history is of little relevance, and is a technical problem rather than a problem relevant to the inclusion of the content. If the content attribution is there, the attribution is given, and any concern with the difficulty in accessing such credit should be raised elsewhere. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes absolutely no sense at all. Its deleted, plain and simple.  There are no links to it.  The only way someone would find it would be to search for its title, and then they'd get redirected instantly to another location.  A merge is the same as a delete.  There is no possible way you are going to copy all that information over to another article, and I find it unlikely even a brief mention of it could be added in somehow.  So if you want to delete it, say delete, not merge, because there is no difference here.   D r e a m Focus  20:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, when a user is redirected to an article, a link appears under the article's title linking to the redirect page. From there, the redirect page's history can be viewed. As for the page's merging, even the smallest amount of content copied over would require the source page to be redirected instead of deleted, for copyright reasons. As I stated, the article has little sourced content, not none. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge what little sourced content there is with Eve Online and delete the rest per WP:GAMEGUIDE. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A game guide would have numbers, listing various stats, and whatnot. This is just a description of ships from a notable work of fiction.   D r e a m Focus  17:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Game guides need not be statistical. A lot of the details about what upgrades do, for example, go too far into WP:GAMEGUIDE material, and generally violates WP:VGSCOPE. So the problem here is not really notability, but more about what Wikipedia is not. Randomran (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GAMEGUIDE#GUIDE Where in that list, is there anything related to the article? I read through it, but don't see any definition that this article falls into.  I also added a link to the article for a news article, specifically about the ships, it getting its own coverage, and a key aspect of the game.   D r e a m Focus  17:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think most reasonable people would think that creating an article on a detailed explanation of an upgrade system in a video game constitutes a gameguide. But if you're not satisfied there, you can look at WP:VGSCOPE, which is the video game Wikiproject set of guidelines which have had consensus for years. Randomran (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether or not it violates WP:GAMEGUIDE, the majority of content it constitutes nonetheless lacks reliable sources and is therefore original research and unsuitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment There are 79 books listed on Amazon for Eve Online. Many, and perhaps all, will including information about the ships.  You have a fictional element, covered not only by its primary sources, but dozens of independent publications as well.  That makes it notable.  Also, the amount of literature in the game and on the website for the ships, and stories involving them, show they are more than just simple stats.   D r e a m Focus  17:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've taken a quick look through the sources and haven't found anything that would verify information on this topic that would still comply with WP:VGSCOPE and WP:GAMEGUIDE. Randomran (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Having glanced through some of these sources, I see no evidence that the ships are covered in sufficient detail to in them to deserve an article. Again: We do not have a separate article on the different classes or raids in World of Warcraft, even though they have garnered far more coverage than any ship in EVE (save perhaps the Titans). That's because it would violate WP:NOTGUIDE--just like this article does. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The ships are what the game is about, you getting around, fighting, and pirating others with those ships. So you can't have a book about it, without mentioning the ships.  I believe this counts as notable sources.   D r e a m Focus  20:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's all well and good to do a search on it, but which of these books can actually be used as reliable sources? Search engines have no concept of notability, so we cannot base notability on their results alone. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, a Wikipedia article should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions, advice (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain how-tos. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides and recipes. If you are interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at wikiHow or our sister project Wikibooks.
 * Delete. Clearly inappropriate per WP:VGSCOPE. Article is nothing more than game guide information and there is no notability asserted whatsoever. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 22:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Eve Online - Cliff's Notes version of a gameguide is still a gameguide itself. Most references are to player's manual, which is GG-ish. Eve Online's coverage of these ships is already sufficient. I'm apathetic as to whether this is just a redirect or if the article is deleted first. I don't see any significant content worth merging. --EEMIV (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete not a game guide. THen redirect to the araticle on the game.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obviously gameguide material. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge Clear-cut place for game-related info is under the game name. Making no judgement as to whether the game article belongs in WP or not. Collect (talk) 11:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Reviews of the game discuss the spaceships briefly. Example - the two-page Gamespot article mentions the game's "unusual-looking spacecraft" but doesn't go into any detail about specific craft. Wikipedia content should reflect this level of coverage. Marasmusine (talk) 11:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Eve Online per EEMIV. I also think it crosses that line into gameguide material, including minutiae and detailed information. MuZemike 20:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge. Some of this information can be trimmed down, as it is excessively wordy. The article has separate sections for each class of ships; instead it would be best if it simply said, "These are the classes of ships" and then mentioned the ship types and different Tech levels. The in-game details presented are a bit excessive, but the idea that some mention of ships be made is supported by Dream_Focus's argument above. -Moritheil (talk) 10:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Looking at the first page of sources provided by Dream Focus I'm fairly certain there would be enough there to support this page. (It is interesting one of the books that shows up clearly not on topic).  Given that 74 odd books show up, I think there will be enough here to meet WP:N.  WP:GAMEGUIDE might be an issue, but I personally favor keeping material of this nature (important work, high-order in context) when it can be sourced. Hobit (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As a followup, let me quote GAMEGUIDE:
 * Frankly, I don't see this as an instruction manual, advice, or containing how-tos. Hobit (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether or not it explicitly violates WP:GAMEGUIDE doesn't matter; there is nonetheless a complete lack of reliable sourcing, rendering the majority or this article's content original research. Furthermore, search results alone don't prove much; unless you can actually extract what's in the results and show what can be used as a reliable source, you haven't got much to establish the notability of the article. Merely being a search result alone does not render a source reliable. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I never argued GHITs. I argued paper sources cover this game in detail and one would presume the way ships work would be covered as it's a major part of the game.  Secondly, drawing from primary sources is different than original research.  Lastly, we don't delete articles because they suck (and this one is actually quite good in its current form).  We delete them because they can't meet WP:N.  It is very very likely this topic can.  Hobit (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Which paper sources are these, then? In its current form, the only secondary sources cited by this article are an image from a fansite and a news article about new ships in an expansion of the game. This is far from enough to constitute an article, so where are the necessary sources to establish notability? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Gameplay of Eve Online, a more suitable home than Eve Online. Nifboy (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand if possible and if there's nothing done in six months, then merge.--KrossTalk 23:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * On what basis? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For me at least it's because there are plenty of paper sources that almost certainly cover this in enough detail. Hobit (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, there are a lot of sources in that search, but which of them contain the necessary reliable information? Search results alone do not assert anything about reliability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The 79 book sources listed above. Looking at the titles and descriptions it seems extremely likely that some will cover this material.  Some certainly won't (and that can be figured out pretty easily too).  Looking at the quality of those, it is very likely indeed that there is coverage that meets WP:N.  Hobit (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that this article was originally created as a 70kb monster and was eventually whittled down to 24-40kb before finally settling at its current under-10kb size. Nifboy (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That isn't necessarily an improvement. Was the information removed valid?  Nothing should be deleted simply because of the articles size.  It was easy to navigate, anyone able to easily scroll through and see the types of ships, reading only what interested them.   D r e a m Focus  03:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Ikip (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * @Hobit: Could you elaborate? I doubt the titles, descriptions and "quality" (which is completely subjective) alone could show much for their reliability. As I stated before, search results alone do not equate reliable sources. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 03:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To you, they don't equate reliable sources, but to some of us it seems common sense that this is something they would cover in those books. WP:common sense  D r e a m Focus  03:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I didn't deny that they would contain information covering this subject, but how do any of the sources provided in the search results qualify as reliable? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 03:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That includes books on Massive Multiplayer games by major publishers. Generally we take books by major publishers as reliable sources unless there is a reason not to... Hobit (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Which books and publishers? You'll have to give specific examples to show such things actually exist, not just a generalisation. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, some listed below. Hobit (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Repeating my arguments of the last nomination: This was nominated for deletion in April 2007 - see Articles for deletion/Spaceships of EVE Online - and kept. However, I believe that the those calling for a keep were largely motivated by WP:ILIKEIT arguments, and additionally, that community standards have moved even further away from such articles being acceptable. For example, Ashenai argued that "Pages like this one are par for the course for popular MMORPGs, see Runescape skills, or Classes in World of Warcraft." However both of those articles have since been deleted and redirected via AfD discussions here and here. The article is 100% game guide material, and Wikipedia is not a game guide. There are no reliable third-party sources. In short, this article's content is of exactly the same nature as many that have previously found consensus to delete. --Stormie (talk) 07:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Ah, thanks for that. There were actually two more AfDs before that, Articles for deletion/Spaceships of EVE Online and Articles for deletion/Spaceships of EVE Online (2nd nomination) (note the capitalisation), both of which ended up on a keep consensus largely based around the fact that the article is too "large" and "detailed" and claims of "notability", with little elaboration into the latter. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Not a game guide, content of no real world relevence. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. A large pat of the article was removed on May 2nd, which means that most people's opinions registered after that date are largely based on the current article, not how it was when it was initially nominated for deletion. See how the article used to look here.  TheChrisD  Rants • Edits 13:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, most of what was removed was unsourced game guide/original research material anyway. I don't see how it could have such a significant impact on this AfD with regards to Wikipedia's policies. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The old version is even worse - like a dog took a dump in a bucket full of cat shit. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * cmt have looked at the "old" version. Eminently deletable, per my reasons given above.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If your only argument against the article is its length or appearance, then you have no argument at all. Those are not valid reasons to destroy something.  If two AFD already have decided Keep, when the article was long, and most here said Keep when it was long, then consensus is to keep that information.   D r e a m Focus  15:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * AfDs from the past were based on older versions of the article and therefore have no relevance. Anyway, far from "most" of people here have !voted "keep". The length of the article probably won't affect their opinions as most of what was removed was original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't original research to list information you can easily verify online on their website. No conclusions were drawn, only the facts themselves listed.   D r e a m Focus  16:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And the past article was even more detailed than the one now.   This will be 4th time this same article has been nominated.   D r e a m Focus  22:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's original research if it's not backed by reliable sources, especially secondary ones. Primary sources such as those from the official website won't justify notability alone, even if the parent article (Eve Online) is backed by secondary sourcing. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, "it survived previous AFD's" is explicitly on the list of arguments to avoid during an AFD discussion--especially given since a number of those ended with "no consensus". TallNapoleon (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume by "the Eve Online page(s)" you're referring to Talk:Eve Online? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:NOTGUIDE. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I like to compare to existing articles and coverage of related topics. For example, Eve-O is similar to Dungeons and Dragons. In D&D, you play as a warrior, or a cleric, or a paladin. In Eve-O, players don't have classes, but rather ships: the Hulk, the Falcon, the Tempest, (...). All of these ships are vastly different from each other, and have a profound impact on how the player plays the game. Players tailor their skills to meet a ships role, and within such adjust to their play style. New ships have a tremendous impact on the gameplay -- remember the drop in mineral prices after the introduction of mining barges? I feel this material is worth keeping because, while ships can be classed together, the different classes vastly affect how you play the game; and that isn't covered in Eve Online or Gameplay of Eve Online. Fightin&#39; Phillie (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you like it has no impact on its notability; if it truly is "worth keeping", then the necessary reliable sources should be proven to exist to justify its keeping. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Those articles, incidentally, also deal with those classes in other games, not just in D&D, which is important because those classes show up frequently in RPGs in general, implying a larger, real-world notability. Falcon-class force recons, however, are only relevant within EVE. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. Not only that, but the topic and content here have no notability in the real world. Since all of the content is in-universe it fails our guidelines for writing about fiction. We need real-world notability to be able to cover it adequately.  This article is too deep within the game to be able to cover on Wikipedia, this content is best reserved for a specialty encyclopedia that isn't concerned the way its topics are recieved outside of the game's universe.  Them  From  Space  19:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Well sourced for a gaming article, sufficient to establish noteability. Well laid out to. Characters from fiction have their own articles and there not about the real world either. An encyclopedia ought to include articles about human culture, and its eliteist to only have entries relating to high art and literature. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Well sourced how? I don't see anything but the Eve Online website itself, and a couple of Eve fansites. This isn't about elitism. This is about the basic level of verifiability that says that articles without third-party sources should be deleted, as well as the policy that Wikipedia is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE. We're trying to hold all articles to the same standard here. Randomran (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Should we really be aiming for the same standard regardless of topic? According to active scientists like Administrator Tim Vickers several of our science articles are frequently referred to by uni students . Ought we really aim for the same standard of rigor on a gaming articles? FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Because unlike real science, imaginary internet spaceships are not inherently notable--even if the game they appear in is. I would say that at this point the best thing to do would be a very abbreviated merge to Gameplay of Eve Online, describing the 5-6 different ship sizes and T1, T2, T3. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Despite their venerated status, many science and maths articles get less than 10 hits per day. So far this month, this articles been getting over 1000 views per day.  Its clearly rather notable to the public, Id guess many of those viewers would be dissapointed if the article was heavilly cut down and merged.  FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * And I'll bet an article on the latest WoW dungeon would get a bunch of hits too; that's not a reason to keep it. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Wikipedia includes content on the basis of notability, not readership. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as a list-like article of entities on a one-level-down basis daughter article from a large parent article (possibly too large and developed for a merge). Although listy and descriptive, not a how-to guide as such. I am happy with notability as such and the bulk of non-in-universe material lying with the parent article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How is its size any justification to keep the article? Considering the lack of reliable sources, there is very little content in the article worth keeping, and certainly not enough to justify notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep (initial note: I tagged the article for rescue at 18:27, 28 April 2009 when the AfD looked like this, i.e. when only four editors had commented, but anyway...) per the following reasons:
 * I will WP:AGF that the description of the article as a "game guide" are not dishonest, but rather a misunderstanding of what a game guide is, i.e. what we are trying to avoid in that guideline against them, namely "how to's". The main purpose of game guides, and as an owners of many game guides, I know, is to provide a strategy for beating the game.  This article hardly provides a strategy for how to beat a game.  Rather, the article provides a discriminate list that builds upon the main article by illustrating key elements like periodic table of elements of list of Oscar winners expands upon an article on elements and Oscars, repectively.  Lists are entirely consistent with both encyclopedias and almanacs, i.e. with our First pillar.
 * I call for a "speedy" keep, because we have discussed this article basically thrice already at Articles for deletion/Spaceships of Eve Online ("no consensus" on 17 January 2009), Articles for deletion/Spaceships of EVE Online (2nd nomination) ("no consensus to delete; default to keep. Lack of sources doesn't always mean delete - it's an invitation to clean up, and I truly hope that the editors of this article will do that. No prejudice against later nomination for deletion" on 7 April 2008), and Articles for deletion/Spaceships of EVE Online ("kept" on 15 April 2007). Once again this time, we clearly have no consensus for deletion.  But given that we have already twice had no consensus and even a keep closure, repeatedly nominating rather than trying to improve or work on something else is counterproductive.
 * The other calls for deletion range from totally over the top examples of WP:IDONTLIKEIT or are part of an indiscriminate all articles must go drive.
 * Moreover, the article's contents are verifiable through reliable sources as confirmed on both Google News and Google Books. Now because they are covered in multiple such sources, the article's content are thus notable as well.  That several of these sources are not primary sources, means the subject matter is one that can be written as unoriginal research.
 * Finally, per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE, no real reason has been presented on why there's a pressing need to redlink. It is not a hoax, not libelous, etc.  Obviously, members of our community believe the subject is worthwhile and came across the article somehow.  So, it is clearly a valid search term (reason for a redirect) and arguably has content that can either be improved, or maybe merged or to serve as a merge location for any articles on individual ships (reasons for merges and per the GFDL, we do not redlink potentially mergeable content.
 * Thus, while there's no compelling reason to delete, there are maybe valid reasons to merge and redirect, and definitely to keep. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt it'll be speedy kept; in no way do previous AfDs have any influence on the current AfD and iteration of the article. "no consensus" is literally "no consensus", not "keep"; it only defaults to "keep" because of WP:PRESERVE, and does not and should not reflect the AfD's (lack of) consensus. Anyway, fundamentally, I still don't see any justification to keep the majority of this article's content. Search results are just search results, not the necessary reliable sources, and to just present a vague possibility of the article being sourced is not equal to such sources being provided. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It should be speedily kept as no real reason beyond "I don't like it" or a misunderstanding of what a game guide is has been presented for deletion. Looking through the Google results shows multiple coverage in reliable sources.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 21:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for an article to be kept it need only be sourceable, not already sourced, and there is no time limit.  The compromise way of handling background material is to use combination articles like this. The individual elements of content do not need to be notable. DGG (talk) 04:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But the subject of the article DOES. I maintain that this is not sufficiently notable to justify having its own article. I would accept a merge and redirect to Gameplay of EVE Online. No one has adequately justified why this topic is so notable as to have its own article. These ships lack real world notability, and a general interest reader does not need to know the different classes of ships to understand that there are there are little ships, there are big ships, and there are really big ships, and there are some ships that are more advanced than others. Do we really need much more than that? TallNapoleon (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there is currently far from sufficient evidence that reliable sources exist. Neither Google nor Amazon have any concept of notability or reliability, and it is up to us to find what is and isn't reliable ourselves. We should not base the article's notability solely on the fallacious idea that because a number of WP:GHITS turn up for it, there must be sufficient reliable information within those results to establish an article. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve as per comments made by TheChrisD and Hobit. It does not at all read like a "how-to" and the article topic is noteable and sourceable. The article is informative and contains no stats, guide-like elements or tips/strategies. ~  Fenrisulfr  ( talk  ·  work  ) 07:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's sourceable, where are the sources? Being a search result alone exhibits absolutely nothing about the reliability of a source. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete violation of WP:NOTGUIDE, effectively making the article gamecruft, and fails WP:N. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion, espeically when the article is in no honest way a gameguide, but by contrast is obviously notable enough for a paperless encyclopedia. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Where's the necessary real-world context, then? Google results are far from enough to show such a thing. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It concerns a topic covered in multiple sources found in Google News and Google Books. That is more than enough real-world context, i.e. multiple authors in the real world saw fit to write about the subject.  We don't need more than that.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Real-world context isn't enough. For a subject to be notable, its sources have to be reliable and verifiable too. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said before, it is notable by any reasonable or logical standard for a paperless encyclopedia. The fact that its sources are reliable and verifiable make it notable.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What standard is that? I haven't seen any elaboration whatsoever in this AfD as to how the provided sources qualify per those policies. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * They meet the policies as elaborated by Hobit below. They are secondary sources that discuss the subject in an out of universe manner.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Books likely to cover this material: (not independent),, , , .  The first will clearly cover this material in some depth.  One can also find some material on-line , , ,  have some coverage.   seems to be a very solid source for this topic.  Hobit (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can really only see the reliability in two or three of these sources, largely Eurogamer and the Prima guide. As for the other books/sites, you'll have to elaborate on how they qualify as reliable. I highly doubt being sold on Amazon alone provides any form of reliability check for these books. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? You are challenging widely available books as reliable sources for the topics they cover without providing any reason to doubt them?   If you have doubts about the reliablity of any of those books, please feel free to raise them. Unless they are self-published, they will generally meet the requirements of WP:RS. Hobit (talk) 02:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. "availability" doesn't say anything about a source's reliability, only its verifiability. Sources should be shown to be both before use on Wikipedia. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No. In general whole classes of sources are generally taken as notable until shown otherwise.  Local news stations, local newspapers and non-self-published books all fit that description. If you've a specific objection, please make it. Hobit (talk) 02:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So any book that is published by someone other than us qualifies as reliable? WP:RS states that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I don't see where such a reputation "for fact-checking and accuracy" is with most of these sources, and that is what you'll have to elaborate on. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per sourcing available and discussions above. The main article(s) including Gameplay of Eve Online are reasonably well-written and large enough that this would reasonably be spun out quickly if merged. It makes more sense to disrupt these articles less and work towards improving them by leaving this in place and adding sourcing and clean-up writing, thus regular editing issues vs deletion issues. -- Banj e  b oi   23:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither the quality of prose nor size alone have any impact on whether an article is notable. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The fact that it is covered in multiple reliable sources is why it is notable and why so many editors across four discussions want the article kept.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The previous discussions should and do not have any impact on this. Both the article and editors have changed since when they occurred and say nothing about how things are in their current state. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really. Four discussions with many of the same participants have yet to come up with any consensus for deletion, ergo, the community does not think it should be deleted, as there's just no reason to do so.  Lists of this nature serve a valuable purpose for our readers, which is why editors are determined to defend this notable article.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The community of however long ago is impertinent to that of today. If their opinions still stand, then they'll be recited. Fundamentally, if any significant points arose previously, then they'd turn up here too. If not, then there's no exhibited consensus for them any more. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly, their opinions still stand as we once again have no consensus for the third time (the first time was "keep"). So, now we should be focused on improving the article instead and we should make use of the sources provided by Hobit above to do just that.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't have consensus until the AfD is closed. To use a prediction of how the discussion will pan out to argue a point in the discussion is nothing but paradoxical. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 03:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's exactly it, there is no consensus, although I personally think the arguments to keep are most persuasive. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it has not been decided by an admin yet that there is "no consensus". What one of us thinks of the consensus is irrelevant and should not have an impact on the admin's decision. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 03:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That neither of us is convincing the other means that we don't agree, i.e. don't have a consensus, although again, I still think that strength of argument would favor keeping; however, I would not arrogantly claim it should close as "keep" as it seems pretty split, although looking closer at some of the bolded deletes, there are calls for merges and redirects within them, which favors some kind of keep. But anyway, aren't we passed 5 or 7 days at this point?  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point. Why isn't this closed yet?  There is no consensus, and no chance of anyone convincing the others to change their opinions at this point.  Shouldn't it close as no consensus, thus the article left alone?   D r e a m Focus  03:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 7 days, yeah. This is getting stale, anyway, and I'd expect any "no consensus" would pan out to a "merge" as a moderate point between the keeps and deletes, or something. Hell, it won't be a delete, so there's potential to expand on the current content, even if it is largely, currently unsourced and unsuitable for inclusion, by its presence in the edit history. This is basically growing somewhat moot now, and I'm growing somewhat tired. G'night. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 03:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment A merge is the same as delete. There is no way more than a token amount of information would be copied over to another article, thus the rest deleted.  Having a redirect on a page, is the same as a delete, other than the fact people can see the history of the page.  If there is a merge discussion later on, everyone who participated here should be contacted, to give their opinions.  I don't think you'll get consensus to merge, if you fail to delete.   D r e a m Focus  03:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily per Merge and delete. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. Just an opinion page. You can always find an essay somewhere to support both sides of any argument, or simply create one yourself for that purpose.   D r e a m Focus  03:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Summary style. This is an appropriate split of a subtopic that does not need to be covered in depth in the main (a.k.a. parent) article. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:55, 6 May 2009 (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.