Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flyff (3rd 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 keep. (non-admin closure) MacMed^talk _stalk 15:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flyff

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

Non-notable online game; no sources, promotional tone, COI ("the DM asked me to write this article") Orange Mike | Talk 21:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — How can a game that has been translated into several different languages & has articles on several different language wiki's, not be notable? There are several sources, all within the article. The promotional tone is being worked on & has in general improved. Jasenm222 has not been the only person editing the article, sure they provided the majority of the info. How is being asked to write an article by someone any different that WP:AFC? This article has been changed in the passed & was keep every other time it has been listed under the article name Flyff. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢ 22:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- reply AFC is a process whereby a neutral third party is asked to create an article, based on some evidence of notability. "The DMs asked me to write this" evidences some strong conflict of interest. The fact that after two prior AfDs the "article" is still basically a fluffy gamers guide with grossly excessive gaming information and in-universe narrative reflects the COI interests of primary author Jasenm222. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Delete. Per nom. How many times will this discussion take place? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

NO

Have you even looked at the page since yesterday I come in everyday to tweak it. I have put many hours into this page. It has changed a lot and yes it still needs work but I do not think it is fair for you to attack it. Would in not be more productive to explain what is wrong. Video Games are a part of the site. I have removed what looked like guide info and it is much more neutral. I removed all "you" references and replaced with "the user". My intention is not to promote but to inform. We are not schooled in encyclopedic writing. We are encouraged to use writing forms that are not accepted here. I have been searching for criteria to help me in my wording of this page, guidelines in what is appropriate and what in not. This is a very large site and finding what we need is not always easy. The use of layman's terms should be encouraged on the guide pages for understanding what we find in not always obvious. The only person I have found to be helpful in the least is ɠu¹ɖяy. Writing a wiki page on internet video games with all of the criteria demanded here is not as easy as it may seem. Online video games are not documented in the same way as computer or console games. The fact that the industry does not cover these games as intensively should not affect their importance. How can a game that has survived 6 years on today's market not be notable. I have every intention to bring this page to standards. This will be achieved more promptly with help then hindrance. (this is from my post on talk page) Jasenm222 (talk) 13:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree that Flyff is notable. It gets mentioned in several gaming news sites: [1][2][3][4] If the subject is notable, which it is, then COI, promotional and sourcing are all reasons for clean-up, not deletion, in my opinion. We wouldn't delete an article on Microsoft just because it contained promotional aspects. We would fix it. _Met^ty 17:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider those (mostly regurgitated press releases) to constitute substantial coverage in reliable sources. You don't agree, okay; but don't accuse me of doing no research. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More links to reliable sources [5][6][7]. Google search for "flyff" results in over 3million results (even though a lot of them are game money selling sites). Hell according to xfire stats, it's the currently the 42nd highest played game right now.[8] I still fail to see how this is not a notable game. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢ 21:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the best point made is that alot of PC games that are not heard in mainstream media. Myself I consider IGN a reliable source and I think mource sourcing would be ideal but it is enough to stand on it's own. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm not saying this is a perfect article, it just needs some work, by citing more & cleaning up. And really more & more people are working on this article now, than just Jasenm222. He just got the ball rolling & has provided a nice large, but still rough foundation. I do applaud Jasenm222 on all his hard work, especially since it his first very large contribution to Wikipedia. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢ 01:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The IGN story cited in the article plus [9] and perhaps [10] provide enough sourcing to meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scrap and rewrite, using available reliable sources. The only content worth keeping in there right now is the infobox. Nifboy (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain your !vote? Joe Chill (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure: It's not really a !vote (that is, it's not actionable) so much as it is a comment that the article is in really bad shape and could stand to be trimmed down to the essentials plus what the sources will support. For instance, I wouldn't devote a whole section to equipment customization unless it's a substantial part of the game and/or the explanation is necessary to give context to a later piece of e.g. reception. Nifboy (talk) 02:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup – there's awards there and some coverage by multiple reliable sources, asserting notability. However, I have to agree that the vast majority of the content in the page is not appropriate for an encyclopedia (i.e. game guide material and overdetailed minutiae) and can probably be removed. Hopefully, someone can step up—preferably someone good enough to be able to write in a more professional and formal manner than what I see right now—and take charge of this article (hence, the cleanup part). MuZemike 22:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – as far as "not being schooled in encyclopedic writing" is concerned, here's how I personally approach articles. Approach them like you're writing an essay for school. Follow all the basic English, grammar, and usage rules that you know so far, skim over Wikipedia's Manual of Style as far as layout and structure is concerned, and look at examples from other well-written video game articles out there. It's like in Dodgeball—if you know how to write an essay, you know how to write an encyclopedic article. MuZemike 22:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Somebody that doesnt regularly edit it should cut it all down and rewrite it based on the references. Most of the "Gameplay", "Social Systems", and "Other Game Features/Systems" mini sections needs to get merged into a summarized paragraph or two. Wikipeida isnt a gameguide, but this is somewhat notable. It has an ok Development section. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per above - runescape has a page why cant this? Besides all you need is to fix it up a bit and Itll be fine. Fattyjwoods ^{Push my button} 07:34, 24 September 2009 (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.