Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supremacy 1914


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Supremacy 1914

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:SOURCES: Non-notable web game with no references from reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The only third-party source is a nomination for an award by an otherwise non-notable review site. Wyatt Riot (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I recently took a look at this entry and hope to be able to find more, or at least better, sources. In common with many on-line games, there are numerous entries and reviews of the game on the web, but these are obviously not published sources, still less peer-reviewed, so in Wiki terms their value is limited.  However, it is in the nature of games, and especially on-line games, that it may be difficult to establish 3rd party sources (see the entries on RuneQuest and Combat Mission which although useful and informative appear at a glance to have no 3rd party sources or on DEFCON (video game) which has a couple of old reviews in obscure games magazines) or notability (see the discussion on notability on OGame).  On the award nomination, it seems a little hard to condemn the review site as non-notable when other equally non-notable (in Wiki terms) on-line review sites are used as sources for other games listed on Wiki.


 * In my view the article is useful, not least because the game beautifully produced and is rare in on-line games in dealing intelligently with an historical conflict with a degree of realism. At this point, I would welcome your suggestions, given the difficulties you have raised, as to how best to address them. The entry is not, I think, intended as an advertisement, and the game is of genuine interest. Londoner1961 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 16:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC).

Possible new source I just received an email response from the editor of a respected and Wiki-approved wargame site who said: "That’s an awesome find.  Thanks for the tip!  I have just the WWI fan on my staff who will be eager to check this out.  The world could use another good WWI game."  So I have hopes that there may be a proper review soon that we can use as a source. Londoner1961 (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Keep Notability and sourcing are notoriously tough to establish for online games. Rather than rehashing the arguments, I would suggest looking at the notability and Afd discussion on OGame which covers this ground. In the case of Supremacy 1914 there are numerous sources, the question is whether they are valid, but by online standards they seem good enough. And as noted above it is likely that there will soon be a review in a Wiki-approved source. So I would suggest holding off for now and revisiting the issue in a few months.Londoner1961 (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources seem good enough for this kind of thing. It did receive a "game of the year" award. I was very pleased and surprised to see that the article was so short and just gave the basic information. I expected it to go on and on like most game articles. Northwestgnome (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that it was nominated for a "game of the year" award on a site where anyone can vote. This isn't anything close to an award given by a reputable gaming site with any sort of editorial control.  Wyatt Riot (talk) 07:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have emailed the editors of a couple of relevant and Wiki approved game review sites to see whether they would consider the game for staff review. Perhaps we could hold off on any deletion decision for a while until I hear back from them? Londoner1961 (talk) 10:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that rather than mark statements as needing citations and adding the appropriate notices above the lead, Wyatt has been nominating the article for deletion, whilst also deleting nearly all the page. Dared111 (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article has been marked for sources for 6 months now, which is generous in my opinion. I looked and found no reputable sources about this game, which is a criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia, and so I've requested that it be deleted.  In the meantime, I have also removed material which violates copyrights and other Wikipedia policies such as WP:NOT.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on verifiability, not truth, not a free-for-all site where people can write whatever they like and hope that someone else will come along and source it later.  If this game doesn't meet our notability requirements, it should not be here, plain and simple.  Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the ethics of canvassing review sites, just so that the game can have an encyclopedia entry. Marasmusine (talk) 11:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Lacks the multiple, in-depth, reliable sources necessary to demonstrate notability and put together a proper game article with verified content. A search is bringing up none either. The browser game competition is of little concern when there are no standard sources to utilize. It certainly looks like the sort of game that will appeal to war enthusiasts, but the time to create an article is after reliable sources have covered it, not before. Someoneanother 00:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Someoneanother 00:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:WEB calls for "multiple non-trivial published works", not a single source that is "likely" coming in the future. WikiProject Video games/Sources lists some very good sources with reputable journalists/authors, editorial control, and so on.  I'm sorry, but none of the sources talking about this game are like that.  Maybe that will change in the future, and I'd be more than happy to bring this up at Deletion review if and when that happens.  Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Of those sources listed on WP:WEB there are only two that are relevant to this game. Of those, one has expressed great interest; the other appears to be defunct as an email to the editor has bounced back.  Again, I would suggest a look at the OGame discussion page as all this has been gone through previously. Londoner1961 (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep due to the fact that it did win a notable award. Also, I'm not familiar with German sites or publications, but may be reliable enough. –MuZemike 19:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What's this award that it won? I haven't been able to find any mention of this.  Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I can't find any information about winning an award either. The german site is announcing a Supremacy tournament a must be considered a press release. Marasmusine (talk) 11:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment about process: I ran across http://www.supremacy1914.com/index.php?id=24&tx_mmforum_pi1%5Baction%5D=list_post&tx_mmforum_pi1%5Btid%5D=26174 while looking for sources, so I added the tag.  Wyatt Riot (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * While I suppose the tag can do no harm, would it not be more usual to introduce it into a discussion if there were actual evidence of contributions here by SPAs or puppets? Posting the link seems to imply that there is such activity but in fact that doesn't appear to be the case. Londoner1961 (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's fairly common to see it happen, and suggested on WP:AFD (#12 at WP:BEGIN). Please don't interpret this as me saying "newcomers aren't valuable to the project" or anything like that, it's just a prominent notice for people who aren't aware of our processes.  Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. But as no newcomers are editing the page, and there seems to be no reasonable expectation that they will, I wouldn't have thought that the #12 criteria were satisfied. Londoner1961 (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My concern here is the phrase "That way it would probably make more people join this great game." - are the contributors' interests in promoting the game, or improving the encyclopedia? Marasmusine (talk) 11:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - while I understand the efforts of the game's fan-base to establish an entry, there doesn't seem to be enough reliable third party sources to merit inclusion at this time. Perhaps, if they succeed in their quest to get the game reviewed/covered by independent sources, then it may merit inclusion in the future.  In my opinion, the "Browser Game of the Year" award is not notable enough in itself to qualify the game for inclusion.  I would be open to allowing the article to exist in the future, but I think that at this time it is premature.   Cocytus   [»talk«]  05:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - There is no significant, independent coverage of this game. Perhaps if it wins the BGotY award it will receive some attention, so no prejudice against recreation at a later date. Marasmusine (talk) 11:48, 12 January 2010 (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.