Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tribal Wars (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. BJ Talk 06:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Tribal Wars
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=238962530 contains a request to move Tribal wars to Tribal Wars.
 * Tribal Wars and Tribal wars (which are about the same videogame) have long histories of being repeatedly re-created and deleted, and see Articles for deletion/Tribal Wars. As the times of the histories of Tribal wars and Tribal Wars overlapped a bit, I was unwilling to histmerge them, so I undeleted the old page Tribal Wars and moved it to Tribal Wars/version 1 to get it out from under the incoming move, and re-deleted it. I then moved Tribal wars to Tribal Wars, including undeleting some deleted edits of Tribal wars so I could move them.
 * There are deleted edits about this game in:
 * Tribal Wars MMOG Talk:Tribal Wars MMOG (AfD at Articles for deletion/Tribal Wars MMOG)
 * Tribal Wars (game) Talk:Tribal Wars (game)
 * Tribal Wars/version 1 Talk:Tribal_Wars/version 1
 * Has this game become notable in the meantime, or should I delete it yet again? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Totally fails WP:WEB, which I believe is the best applicable test here (though WP:PRODUCT wouldn't do it much better). &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 09:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   -- &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 09:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.   -- &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 09:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * keep Tribal wars and few others like it are played by millions of players world wide on a daily basis, sure the article could do with improvement, but I see no fundamental reason to delete it Jasonfward (talk) 09:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I see nothing to indicate notability, no sources to overturn the previous consensus to delete. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 11:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm inclined to think that it is more notable than we have yet to be able to determine, due to the (thusfar) 17 other language Wikipedia projects individuals throughout the world felt the need to create this same article on.  However, without sufficient sourcing, I don't know how we can keep it. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, again. Still no sources.-Wafulz (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment:Wikipedias guidelines fail for things like Tribal Wars, sure they are very rarely commentted upon or reported in the press, but they are played by literally millions of people every single day, there are many websites dedicated to following the minutia of the games varys doings, and ten of thousands of closed group forums that are fervently frequented by the games devotees, that wikipedia cannot either access these or that wikipedia does see these as good references does not change the fact that these games have important social impact and are in fact notable, just not on Wikipedias definition of noteable. However, last time I read the noteable guidlines I am sure I read that just because something fails the notable guildlines does not in itself make an article non notable.  This is an article and subject area is I feel exactly the sort of the thing the authors of the notibility guildlines didn't want to see killed by the guidelines. Jasonfward (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read the WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE deletion discussion pitfall as well as WP:V. Remember what it says in that first sentence: Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. MuZemike (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. I'm going to side with Jasonfward. This is an example of how Wikipedia needs to update its notability criteria for the 21st century. I'm adding the qualifier "weak" because a source should be added to support the claim that "millions" of people play it. There should be something to support that. Otherwise, I agree that just because the New York Times or Britannica or the Harvard Journal of Videogames (or whatever) hasn't devoted extensive coverage to a topic doesn't always disqualify it from being included. The policies contain notwithstanding clauses in this regard. 23skidoo (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. So how are we to decide what material is neutral? What if there are significant criticisms or praises? Do we include both? Do we include neither? Will the article ever stand a chance of actually being informative? Will the article ever stand a chance of being authoritative? How do we avoid original research? Do we just create caveats that say "okay, you're free from policy because _______"? Can I create a forum/blog/website specifically for disparaging the subject and use it as a source, just because? We didn't throw in the "sources" criterion just for shits and giggles. We wrote it in there because ultimately, Wikipedia is only as reliable and as neutral as the sources it presents, and if the sources are weak and shoddy, it will show.-Wafulz (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment:I should clarify, I have never played our been involved with "Tribal Wars" I have played a rival game called Travian, and I was blown away by the size an vitality of the sub-culture that exists around Travian. In the Travian article we do indeed have references to back up the claims of millions of players.  I cannot offer the same for Tribal Wars and indeed I cannot claim that Tribal Wars is played by millions, however I have seen the Tribal Wars and Travians articles both up for deletion in the past and remember the real struggle put in to meet the guidlines, Travians suceeded just, Tribal Wars did not.  I just feel empathy and sympathy for the articles maintainers and worry that wikipedia is in effect negating and invalidating an important subculture because of the guidlines.  However having read Wafulz's comments, I agree its no good to rely on some form of "trust me I'm in the know."  With Travian I now feel I could defend it from any deletion debate, however as I say I never played Tribal Wars, just heard quote a lot about it, but Im no position to really get the details needed by the guildelines Jasonfward (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability not established through in-depth coverage in reliable sources, struggling to find anything of use in a search. Notability is doing its job, the nature of WP is that we can't formulate our own original research, and issues such as neutrality and breadth-of-scope are part and parcel of it. WP is a tertiary source, by definition and under the restrictions we operate under MMOGs need secondary coverage before we can do much about them, as has always been the case through these recreated articles. The problem isn't solved by moving the goalposts, it's by the gaming press covering MMOGs/freeware/indie games etc. properly, which is slowly but surely happening. I fully support the game having an article when the sources exist, the same as any other game, but no video game needs a glorified game database entry which parrots the documentation if that's all it can ever be - the game's site can do that itself. If contributors interested in having an article on the game find new sources etc. then they're always welcome to reach out to the video game project or to individuals or whatever to discuss them, trying to hammer the square block through the triangular hole isn't the way to go about it. Someoneanother 18:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Salt again too It's hardly a malicious act for fans to repost articles but in this case enough contributor time has been spent on this, their energy would be better spent getting the gaming media interested so we have something to write an article with (and will also achieve the exposure seems to be the purpose). Till the sources are presented reposts after this AFD (presuming it's deleted again) should be whacked on sight. Someoneanother 15:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete (G4) and salt again — See deletion log and protection log. The poor quality of this article suggests that this has not improved at all from the other umpteen times this article was recreated or unsalted. This is simply blatant recreation of deleted material and meets G4. Also recommend salting the earth again; make a user present his/her case to admin for recreating the article again instead of disrupting Wikipedia like this. MuZemike (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Actually, this is considerably better than the old version and completely different from it (not straight-up recreation), which is the only reason I didn't speedy-delete this myself when I found it through an RM listing. The admin who deleted after the last AfD (which had many "keeps") is inactive and so could not be contacted about his opinion on unsalting the target or undeleting. I probably agree that this should be deleted, but you might want to be more temperate in your comments; as in this case, it's always possible that multiple admins have already considered and turned down speedy deletion, and the world won't end if the page is up for two more days while we finish this process. Dekimasu よ! 07:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying. It obviously hasn't been speedied by now, but admin will still look at my comment as more of a strong delete than anything else, even if it meets the speedy criteria. However, the fact remains that the article meets G4 criteria, it has not corrected the problems that brought it to AfD/CSD in the first place, on many different occasions. In all three AfDs pertaining to this game, nearly all keep arguments are based on WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE, just as in right now. This article was deleted 12 times (twice for G3, three times for A7, three times for G4, once for G11, and three times via AfD) and salted 3 times. There are things here called sandboxes in which users can work on future articles before posting them into the mainspace. This is getting to the point (as much as I am trying to assume good faith here) where it's becoming outright disruption. I'd like to hear the rationales behind the unsalting when no improvements to the article has been made (knowing very well I'm not an admin, but maybe that's why I'm down here and not up there). MuZemike (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This game has a huge number of players online, which makes it as notable as World of Warcraft. The page needs work, but I vote for keep and improve Tuxraider reloaded (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability isn't determined by the game's quantity of members, but rather by the quality of the game's verifiable, reliable sources. MuZemike (talk) 23:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt unless those arguing for the retention of this article can up with independent, reliable sources by the time the AfD closes. That is, I acknowledge that it's G4'able, but let's give them one last chance to meet WP:N before blowing it away. Jclemens (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I found passing mention of it (it confirms that there are a lot of people playing it, anyway), which would probably be sufficient for something like List of online games or something (I'm guessing there's such an article, just not at that title). However, it probably does not meet the requirements of WP:WEB or WP:N atm. No bias toward delete or keep. --Izno (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It only gives trivial coverage at best. It certainly does not meet the WP:GNG which requires significant coverage; only one trivial mention in what seems to be very much a verifiable source does not pass that guideline. MuZemike (talk) 06:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is why it was not a keep ;). Tbh, this probably is appropriate for such an article as list of online games, as having an RS (even if in passing) does give it validity for satisfying WP:RS and WP:V. WP:N is for topic matter and not for specific items in an article, which is why I would support the list. --Izno (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * List of massively multiplayer online role-playing games and List of massively multiplayer online games are geared to games which have articles, probably due single-minded fans of these countless games posting links to NN ones. Someoneanother 15:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In which case it may be necessary to overhaul those pages, merging in those articles which do have RS but are likely NN (for not having enough or not having enough with a less than passing mention) and sending the rest to AfD. Those which are WP:N should still be listed, of course, just with links rather than summaries. --Izno (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete & protect from re-creation. Popularity in & of itself is irrelevant if there aren't enough RS secondary sources to put together an article.--Bsnowball (talk) 09:44, 19 September 2008 (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.