Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zu Online


 * 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   keep. It seems IGN and Massively were enough to tip the balance. Shimeru (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Zu Online

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I don't believe this MMORPG meets our notability criteria because I haven't been able to find significant discussion of it in reliable, third-party sources. There were a lot of near-misses (nonreliable reviews and the like) in my searches so hit me up on my talk page if you are pretty certain this has the coverage to meet WP:N.  Them From  Space  07:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see no WP:N. Majority of hits seem to be primary and ascertain little notability. It's WP:FANCRUFT and WP:GUIDE. Besides, half of it is written against WP:CRYSTAL. — Hellknowz ▎talk 19:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I copyedited the article, removing wp:crystal. I removed wp:fancruft and replaced with feature description with primary sources. I added two marginally notable sources provided below by MrStalker. Also added reception section. Fixed error about wrong developer. I believe a little more rescue and this article deserves its space. — Hellknowz ▎talk 16:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To add:   — Hellknowz  ▎talk 14:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this online game. Joe Chill (talk) 01:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Cannot find significant coverage. Reach Out to the Truth 19:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. It may not be very well covered by the mainstream gaming mediums, but I think the game still might be notable enough for inclusion. It has some coverage at MMO-focused sites . Although I admit much about the article can be improved, it should be so rather than deleted. -- Mr Stalker  ( talk ) 11:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am too lazy to search for good sources, so if you find any more, I can add properly them. — Hellknowz ▎talk 16:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources out there are pretty bad. MMOHut is specifically excluded as a reliable source on the WikiProject Video games list of reliable sources.  OnRPG looks like just about every other MMO site out there: spammy, fan ratings and voting, press releases, no list of editorial policies, no author credit, in short everything that makes a source unreliable. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep Clicking the Google news search link at the top of the AFD, I see a very large number of hits. Many game sites are talking about it.  If we bothered to read sources in Chinese, we'd probably find even more.  Not every MMO gets mentioned these days, there just too many of them, so its notable if its covered everywhere.   D r e a m Focus  14:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Can anyone translate Chinese sources? — Hellknowz ▎talk 14:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak delete or userfy/incubate. This game definitely exists as verified in some WikiProject Video games-approved sources like IGN and 1UP, but the amount of material is rather trivial and probably not enough to write an actual article around. I would suggest gutting the article, removing unreliable secondary sources (like MMOHut and OnRPG), and userfying (assuming someone is willing to take on that task) or move into the article incubator until reliable, non-trivial sources show up. Or if nobody wants to take on that responsibility, delete with no prejudice against recreation at a later time. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Keep as Marasmusine has found some non-trivial reliable sources, not sure how I missed them.  :)  Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The search through the reliable sources has 149 results.  The first thing listed is enough of a review.  The rest I've bothered to click on seem to just mention it exist, and give no real information, just one press release, and a lot of screenshots.  A lot of people do apparently play this game though.   D r e a m Focus  07:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply - the first thing listed isn't even remotely a review. It's a blurb. A press release at best. Just because something passes WP:RS doesn't mean its significant coverage. --Teancum (talk) 11:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - We shouldn't use MMOHUT or OnRPG as sources, and the google search above is largely a collection of press releases and directory entries (sorry Dream Focus, I couldn't spot the review). However amongst the chaff there are one or two great sources such as this extensive IGN interview (invaluable for a Development section). Marasmusine (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good find! That is plenty of coverage.  The review I was speaking of is  there a short summary explaining what the game was about, it not just copy paste nonsense, but an actual review, although not a long one.   D r e a m Focus  16:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Given MMOHut and OnRPG have to go, can we use primary sources for feature description? Uninterpreted, of course. — Hellknowz ▎talk 16:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * From my understanding, primary sources are acceptable as long as 1. there are already non-trivial, reliable sources to establish notability, and 2. the claims are not overly self-serving. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I wouldn't use the Gamezone link either; the description is completely uncritical and reads like a publisher's description (indeed, that text appears on other sites too) Marasmusine (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Blech, these MMO sites are not good as reliable sources at all, but this proper article on Massively (AOL) does exist, I've also seen a magazine feature on this game (it's in an issue of PC Gamer or something like that). Even coupled with the IGN interview it's a poor show, however. Someoneanother 15:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - The Massively (AOL) and IGN interview links may serve useful -- but my major concern is that they actually be added to the article before this thing gets a keep vote from me. Far too many articles pass AfD because sources were found, but those sources never get added, and so get lost in the mix -- which means the article might come back to AfD later. --Teancum (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made a start, with the Massively review. I'm not quite ready to take on the Development section :> Marasmusine (talk) 16:07, 7 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.