Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TDZK

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 as failing to meet WP:V and WP:WEB. Shell babelfish 08:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TDZK

edit

No indicated notability, seems to fail WP:V, WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. Some additional info: Alexa ranking is 112,717 and google search delivers about 34,800 hits. Peephole 12:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can anyone please explain why articles concerning on-line games are considered unsuitable for Wikipedia? If we can understand that, then the case for deletion would make more sense. Is it a case of "using Wikipedia for commercial purposes"? If so, would that same principle not be applicable to a number of other articles related to commmercially available products (e.g. comic books)?

    Just curious.

    [Edit] Ah. I didn't see the links about "notability" prior to this. May I ask what constitues a "non-trival" publication, aside from the listed mention of newspapers/ads/etc.? Would an in-print novel constitute a "non-trivial source"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.231.224 (talk • contribs) who meant "notability", rather than "suitability", I think Tonywalton  | Talk {Stan Johnson--original comment corrected to say "notability")

    • A non-trivial published work is a work that is more than a simple directory listing ("Game name: X Description: Y Author: Z"). A printed game guide written by a third party would be non-trivial, for example, as would a magazine feature article that discussed the development and marketing of the game. Please cite reviews, histories, and analyses of this game that come from sources other than the game and its authors. Uncle G 13:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noted. Thank you. May I verify that a third-party novel (non-reviewed, but in print, and selling) constitutes a "non-trivial source," or is it required that the publication be about the game as a whole, as opposed to simply characters within the game? [www.cafepress.com/tdzk.61186767 Tales from Taenaria novel]

    That said, the notability criteria mentioned the winning of a third party award, which is mentioned in the "Acheivements" section of the article in question. This strikes me as sufficiently valid, but that's merely a personal opinion. {Stan Johnson)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.231.224 (talk • contribs)

    • Comment:A listing in a web directory is far from notable.--Peephole 19:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: That being said, would winning a monthly award because of said listing in web directory count as notable? Malykyn 19:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: With respect, that comment seems a mere matter of semantics. Who is it, in Wikipedia, that determines what constitutes "notable"? The listed criteria states "The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.[6] " Where is the line of "well-known," and who determines that? Until such guidelines can be satisfactorily established, it appears to me that the article in question meets Wikipedia's requirements for basic "notability." That said, the game did win an award through MMOPGD; it's no, mere directory listing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.231.224 (talk • contribs)
  • And I'm still waiting for an answer about novels by independent authors. Per the following comment, "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.[7]" I can see it going either way, based on interpretation. Still, the distributor (CafePress) is most decidedly independent of TDZK, and seems fairly "well-known."(Stan Johnson)
    • Comment: A fanfic book doesn't make a game notable imo. What would make it notable is a mention in a newspaper, reviews in gaming magazine or well known online gaming sites. --Peephole 21:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Again, what is the accepted definition of "well-known"? Many would argue that MPOGD is a very well known online gaming site. Without a more definitive answer, it's just a personal opinion, and that doesn't seem like a very fair appraisal. I think it should also be mentioned that MPOGD awards are given based on user votes, not the personal opinion of an editor.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.164.211 (talk • contribs)
  • (Weak) Keep, pending further revisions and improvements. As an active player and contributor in the TDZK community, I feel that the article could be updated to indicate notability and meet the requirements in the aforementioned policies (and soon-to-be-policies, in the case of WP:SOFTWARE). Malykyn 19:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum: Changed to a Weak Keep. Yes, there is much that could be said that makes this game notable, but, honestly, the game has not reached a level of notability where it warrants an encyclopedia entry. I do feel that this will change with the release of Nomad, however, and encourage that the article be left intact pending the addition of citations and more information. Malykyn 23:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I view http://unseen-u.org/~denubis/tdzk/TagonsToughsCaseStudy.pdf, as a non-trivial source. This is a case study of rapid group formation within TDZK, and explores how game enviornment and mechanics influence the formation of social groups. TDZK has also been studied by the Virtual Society project, and the into to that project can be found at http://mt.sh.se/~hernwall/text/Hernwall_cyborg.pdf --Jerle0 02:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Note: No edits outside this AfD and article[reply]
    • The first is a study of a group of game players within (and outside of) the game, and only tangentially mentions the game itself. It might be a useful source for an article on symbolic cconvergence, but it isn't a useful source for an article on TDZK, since it tells us nothing about the history, development, or structure of TDZK. The second isn't actually the study of the game by Virtual Society itself, but a document saying no more than that TDZK is something that "will be studied". Until it has been studied, the WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE criteria are not satisfied by this. But I applaud the effort to cite some non-trivial published works about the game. That's exactly the sort of research that we need editors to do more of at AFD, and you are citing non-trivial works. Please find some more. Uncle G 09:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; Peephole, you clam that winning a "game of the month award" is not notable? I would be interested to see yourself having the ability to create a game that can win such a competition. Staff and developers work hard for this game, and consequently the realise of TDZK Nomad is upcoming. This promises to bring with it a lot of unique developments, opportunities, and press. Novels such as “Tales from Taenaeria“ would not exist if the lore and physics had not been set down in the game. Such sites that list such games should also not be considered “trivial”, such sites are essential to the distribution of information about games that are not developed by large software companies, without such sites it would be near impossible for single, or small groups of developers to distribute software, and advertise their product. For such games to even get even a mention in such articles as http://mt.sh.se/~hernwall/text/Hernwall_cyborg.pdf and http://unseen-u.org/~denubis/tdzk/TagonsToughsCaseStudy.pdf is a hard feat to achieve, there are many thousands of games out there which will never be included in this kind of study, this must consequently mean this game has some fetchers which make it unique. --Maya tekla 11:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Note: No edits outside this AfD[reply]
    • Please actually read the documents that you've referred to. The second isn't a study. It is merely a document saying that there "will be" a study. Uncle G 11:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • When scientists announced that the Human Genome Project "will be" studying the human genetic code, that didn't make it any less notable or important as when they announced that it was complete. I think that for any scholarly group to even announce specific interest in studying it is notable enough.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.164.211 (talk • contribs)
        • Wrong. An encyclopaedia article on the human genetic code cannot be written until after studies of it have been performed and published, just as an encyclopaedia article on a game cannot be written until after the study on that game (which no-one has so far offered a citation for, and which thus possibly was never actually done at all) has been performed and published. Uncle G 19:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • See below.
    • I'm sorry if I translated "will be" from the first article literally, meaning there will be a study, which will therefore lead to some official documentation and reports. The point still stands. --Maya tekla 13:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Note: No edits outside this AfD[reply]
      • We don't write encyclopaedia articles about things that "will be" studied. We write encyclopaedia articles about things that have been studied. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Uncle G 19:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe we are not referring to the actual data of the research, rather than the fact that the research is taking place and is using TDZK as a source of data. Information about the genome may not be valid until the study is done, but what we're saying is that you can't deny that the study exists even if it's not complete. That said, the ViS:Virtual Society project was completed and their findings were published November 2005. Their final summary is in Swedish only, but it can be found here: http://www.mmedu.net/isite-cache/filer/270/Slutrapport_ViS.pdf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.164.211 (talk • contribs)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Peephole 12:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still uncertain about just who it is that has the actual authority to delete articles. While I understand that anyone (?) can suggest a deletion, whose opinion/interpretation of the rules is it that truly matters, and has this party been/will this party be notified concerning this issue? I'll stand by a final, authorised decision, but it's clear from the discussion that conflicting opinions and interpretations exist, and I question whether any of us discussing this are authorised to make a final pronouncement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.231.224 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment- I'll answer your question. The only people who can actually physically delete something are administrators. No one else has a delete button to click. That said, this page is here so that non-admins can debate the merits of the page, rather than have some guy just up and delete it (unless it meets the criteria for speey deletion, like spam or a vanity article). The admin reads the debate, and decides whether it is deleted, kept, or kept due to no consensus, which means that it can be re-proposed for deletion sooner. I'm not an admin, but look up- there's not a single "delete" written here. A lot of talking without votes, which is unusual, but I'm not exactly seing a consensus to delete. It will most likely be kept. In the meantime, go read up on the rules for AfD, it'l esplain things more thoroughly. --PresN 19:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; Given that the first 100 or so Google results for "TDZK" are more or less all releant to TDZK, and that TDZK has a userbase of over 1800 (it has been at over 4000 in the past, and a new round has just started as far as I know). There is nothing factually incorrect about this article, nor is there any sign of bias.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GotenXiao (talk • contribs) Note: Only edit from this user
  • Keep; Apparently it's noteworthy enough to start a debate over. ;)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.231.224 (talk • contribs)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached"? Yes, I know Wikipedia isn't a democracy, and this isn't a vote. But it's either notable or it's not, and I don't suspect much in the way of consensus will be reached any time soon; we seem to have a pretty polarised crowd, here. In the end, I would think that the Wiki Admins are the ones who will decide which opinions of notability count, and whether the article is appropriate for deletion.
  • 'I don't think that the fact that the article discusses a browser-based game is sufficient to make it non-notable. But again, that's merely an opinion. I still maintain, per "keep" comments above, that the article has met the listed "notability" criteria, even if only just.
  • Strong keep. There is A TON of entries about web based games as you can see on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multiplayer_browser_games None of them meet WP:V, WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE, yet several titles already passed AfD voting. I don't think any of those policies should apply here, if we were to strictly follow them, then every single entry about web based games would have to be deleted. Since that isn't going to happen (most of the pages contain valuable information, especially for people resarching the subject), let TDZK entry be. It's one of biggest games on the list after all. Pelias 23:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I totally agree, there have been many gaming entries I've found useful that have been deleted in recent weeks, it seems to me for instance that not a single browser-based roleplaying or CRPG game will be left in Wikipedia. --Ariadoss 14:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TDZK&oldid=1255441839"