Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TinyWarz (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. No prejudice to recreation if sources are found. Shimeru (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

TinyWarz
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:WEB and WP:V: non-notable browser game with no references based to reliable, third-party, published sources. The single current source is to a radio show whose site gives no indication about editorial oversight or notability of the journalists. I've looked and can find no reliable sources, especially those on the WikiProject Video games list of sources. Wyatt Riot (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  Wyatt Riot (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a little hard for a niche game to be picked up by published sources. The game is notable because it is a niche game. That is, the interaction between developers and players is unique in such a way that there is a constanr discussion going on between players and developers on how the game should be changed, what should be added and what should go. In this sense the game in unique and deserves a place on Wikipedia, The contributers are trying to write the article in such a way that this uniqueness prevails. The idea was to write additional articles on player decided games. Dscheers (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but if a game has received no attention from secondary sources, then we can't include it in this tertiary source. Being "unique" is not notability unless there's someone to report on it. Marasmusine (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - the quality of the coverage, provided in the external links, is unsatisfactory. Marasmusine (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok fair enough, give me a bit of time to see if I can get interest from secondary sources Dscheers (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have provided some sources that, while short, are either approved on the WikiProject_Video_games/Sources page or have not been investigated yet. (Jwoodger (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Personally, I still don't think these sources cut it. gamershell is a reliable source, but it's an extremely trivial mention (a single sentence). MPOGD can be reliable (on a case-by-case basis); the problem here is that their news posts can be user-submitted and this one is rather trivial (2 short paragraphs).  The rest are rather unreliable sources and primary sources.  I would still argue for deletion but with no prejudice against recreation if and when more "multiple non-trivial published works" appear as required by WP:WEB. Wyatt Riot (talk) 05:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * ´Keep - I've added Google Gadget links showing broad support of and interest for the game. Dscheers (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Google Gadgets can be uploaded and created by anyone, thus making them an unreliable source --Teancum (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It was not my intention to use Google Gadgets as a source, the idea was to show broad support and interest in the game (enough to create Google Gadgets, and in this way to fortify the Notabilty aspect of the game. Dscheers (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that's not how it works. Broad popularity or things like Alexa ratings don't grant notability.  Air is notable to every human on Earth, but if there weren't any reliable sources to reference, we wouldn't have an article on it.  Wyatt Riot (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Added a review by brothersoft.com, a source which is included in Wikipedia and according to the page on WikiPedia "It was ranked among comScore Top 10 Gaining Properties by Percentage Change in Unique Visitors (U.S.) in October 2009 by comScore." which should qualify it as a reliable secondary source.Dscheers (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's also a notorious malware site as explained at Brothersoft.com. I removed the link. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't completely agree with your argument... The New York Times publishing an ad for a forex dealer which turns out to be a scam, doesn't make the New York Times an unreliable source...Dscheers (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the advertising section in the New York Times would be an unreliable source. Plus, nytimes.com itself doesn't attempt to install malicious software.  Wyatt Riot (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have proof or references that it is the site itself that attempts to install malicious software ? It could be hackers, uploaded software or ads... I visited the page and my virus scan and online security program did not detect any mallware on the pages I visited. I actually followed the links Norton Safeweb published that suposedly had malware and found they were missing, or no longer 'infected'. Since a webmaster of a listed site has to contest the Safeweb inclusion (and before a webmaster can contest them, he has to be ware of it), the inclusions might be out of date as apparently is the case here. I would say the Norton Safeweb page on Brothersoft is unreliable... Dscheers (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The comments on Norton's site are from as recent as "2 hours ago" so apparently others aren't having the same experience as you. Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Wyatt, but you appear to use 2 different standards... on one side you say blogs and those things are not reliable sources, on the other hand, you willingly except unknown users postings (on the Norton web) as being the truth... Dscheers (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All I'm saying is that Norton Safe Web is currently showing 33 threats on brothersoft.com. You say that you haven't had problems with Brothersoft while users on Safe Web claim to have ongoing issues.  In this instance, Symantec—as a recognized provider of computer security software—is a reliable source.  Neither you nor the anonymous users on Safe Web are reliable sources; I was merely pointing out the contradiction.  Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My point was that the information on Norton Safeweb is out of date, hence IMO it looses larger part of its reliability... for example, the first link in the spyware category says that a keylogger is found at http://files.brothersoft.com/RegNow/xpadvancedkeylogger.exe If you follow that link, you will notice it takes you to a file-not-found-page (look at the URL). Same thing happens with the second link http://files.brothersoft.com/chat_e-mail/misc_chat/YahooMessengerSpyMonitor.exe Dscheers (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Added a review by PlayComet.com, a site that was apparently accepted as a reliable secondary sources by Wikipedia for the game Business Tycoon Online Dscheers (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Another non-notable unreliable source. No indication of their editorial policies, no author credit, etc. And besides all that, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: something isn't allowed simply because you can find it in another article. And please remember to sign your comments. Wyatt Riot (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC) (apologies for the non-signing) Dscheers (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at Business Tycoon Online, I see as references: Webgame Ranking, a Vietnamese link, the PlayComet link and another vietnamese link. Which of those "sources" listed then is a reliable secondary source and makes the listing of that game compliant with WP:WEB ??? Surely not the Vietnamse links (in that case I can post some Dutch and Philipine links) or a webranking ? Dscheers (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * None of the sources appear reliable. Again, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, so what does that game have that TinyWarz doesn't? And yes I've read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which are not rules, just guidelines and say that just because another article hasn't been discovered as AfD ... Dscheers (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear to have anything that the TinyWarz article doesn't. As a result, it will probably be deleted eventually unless more reliable sources are added.  And you're right, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a guideline, it's just a simple way of stating that other articles don't matter in this AfD.  We're discussing this article and the closing admin will base his or her decision based on policies like WP:N and WP:V.  If you feel that there's a double standard and that other articles should be deleted, then by all means bring them through the AfD process.  Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. -- Nuujinn (talk) 00:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, insufficient substantial coverage in reliable sources. User:Dscheers is recommended to read WP:BLUDGEON. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - although the sources are largely press releases, what do we think of Gamertell as a reliable source? (About page) Marasmusine (talk) 13:33, 6 May 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.