Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Molehill Empire

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 no consensus. Big Dom 20:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Molehill Empire

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:WEB and WP:V: non-notable browser game with no references based on reliable, third-party published sources. I've looked using the WikiProject Video games guide to sources as a starting point and found nothing, only primary sources and unreliable advertisement/linkfarm/press release sites. The WPVG custom Google search returned exactly two hits, a trivial 2-sentence mention in a blog and a site that (somehow) doesn't even contain the words "Molehill Empire". Wyatt Riot (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Wyatt Riot (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find nothing resembling an independent reliable source on this game, unfortunately. Someone another 00:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first source that Andi47 has found looks good to me, but a single source doesn't provide enough detail and won't lead to a balanced article, if another is out there then I'd happily switch to keep. Someone another 17:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I note that this does appear to be a rather large online gaming site (8 million users per one RS), and there are RS mentioning it (e.g. 1 2 3, search for the German name of the site, "Wurzelimperium"). In-depth coverage I haven't found though. Amalthea 18:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether games magazines qualify as RS, but anyway a quick search gives a few hits on the german "Wurzelimperium", e.g. 4, 5,6. I haven't searched in English magazines, though. --Andi47 (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Game magazines can certainly count, as long as it's legitimate journalism. For our needs, sources must be reliable, independent, and non-trivial at the same time, and we need multiple sources that fit this description. All of the sources I've seen are either reliable but trivial (a tiny mention in a newspaper, for example), non-trival but unreliable (fan sites), primary sources (press releases), and so on.

For example, a WPVG custom Google search using "Wurzelimperium" (the German name of the game) returns zero search results. There's a lot out there, but it's nothing we can build an article around. Wyatt Riot (talk) 07:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how that custom search works, but it for sure doesn't return non English results, so I don't think that it should be used for this case. Further the game is for sure one of the most widely known browser games in Germany, Poland and other countries within the European Union - Hoo man (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It only returns results from sources found by WikiProject Video games to be reliable. If you can suggest additional sources which are reliable and non-trivial, please do. We've got a single source thus far (~~stuttgarter-zeitung.de~~ gamestar.de) which may meet our requirements, and we need multiple. Popularity alone doesn't give us material to write an encyclopedia. I hope this helps! Wyatt Riot (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GameStar is one of the top three video game print magazines in Germany. The link found by Andy certainly is non-trivial coverage by a reliable source. Nomination for the German developers award ("Deutscher Entwicklerpreis") in 2008 is also significant. I now think it passes WP:N. Amalthea 11:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was editing from work and got my sources wrong. GameStar does appear notable, yes. (My German is a little rusty but the article is non-trivial and the author looks to be an actual game journalist, yay!) Stuttgarter-zeitung.de is notable but trivial so I've struck it out in my comments above. Nomination for an award also doesn't cut it; to meet WP:WEB, the subject has to win, especially for these industry events where the "insiders" (the developers themselves) have a part in the nomination and voting process. Wyatt Riot (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, with some research I've found the following: 1, 2. Further the German version was mentioned in the printed version of the Computer Bild Spiele (which I don't have a copy of, but you can find some notes to it using google 3) and it had TV ads on several big German TV stations (eg. Pro7 and the German version of Mtv) Commercial: 1 - Hoo man (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just an addition which finally should have enough weight to keep it. First the page is the 88. most visited site in Germany (1) and here is a short list of mentions of the polish version: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 - Hoo man (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity and simple search result hits don't matter. We need reliable and non-trivial sources. All of the sites you linked are trivial except for one (pobierz.pl) and that doesn't even list an author. To write an encyclopedia article we need legitimate game journalism, not short summaries on game spamming sites. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

some more sources: 1, 2, 3, 4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andi47 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All poor-quality blogs with informal/amateur writing on unreliable sites. None of them even list an author. Please read through WP:Sources or Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources for more information about sources that we value. Cheers! Wyatt Riot (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Browsergamez might be reliable: about page shows owning company, address (usually a good sign) and list of editors.~~ Never mind, clearly just a publisher's description. Marasmusine (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 17:25, 13 March 2011 (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.