Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MonsterMMORPG

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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MonsterMMORPG

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

browser based game, was speedily deleted, and recreated by creator. Creator has COI with the game (author/publisher).

Several sources listed, most are either self published (game website) or definate non reliable database listing of all games etc.

Two sources do provide somewhat in depth coverage

But I think that these do not meet the WP:RS theshhold.

Editor has been making a WP:POINT on original CSD admin's talk page here claiming that this game is being treated unfairly as compared to other browser based games in regards to notability and reliability. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What about the gamespot source? COI editors are a pain, but I don't think this article qualifies for deletion. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the gamespot source? Here is the entirety of the content "MonsterMMORPG is a massively multiplayer online role-playing game similar to Pokemon.". I think this qualifies under the "database" exception. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed. It also contains a video tutorial of how to play, which I think counts as coverage by a secondary source. But fair enough, I see your point. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the Gamespot reference is merely a directory entry stating that the game exists. The other references are the site itself or blogs. Fails WP:WEB and WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These 3 following sources has editors : http://xin.07073.com/haiwai/539191.html , http://www.onrpg.com/MMO/MonsterMMORPG/review/MonsterMMORPG-Fight-to-the-Top , http://mmohuts.com/browser-games/monster-mmorpg yet all of the other sources are also published via their editors but their names are not listed. Non of the references are generated via users. Also when the game site content and nature of it considered, it is almost impossible for an indie game and browser mmorpg game to get so many high authority reference links. Browser mmorpg games are relatively low budged games for both developing and advertising. When advertising is massive you get so many good reference links but if you don't have extreme budged to spend on advertising, you don't have many chances to get good authority reference links. Following category listed games reference links are also proving my point : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Browser-based_multiplayer_online_games . I have checked that category games 1 by 1 and 90% of them has lesser reputable reference links than mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShareToGain (talk • contribs) 23:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is difficult for an indie browser based game to get reliable sources is not wikipedia's fault. It means that it islikely that the topic in not a good subject for an article on wikipedia. We are not here to serve as google-juice for you. Regarding the other games - as I mentioned on your talk page, WP:OTHERSTUFF exists, but if you have individual articles which you believe do not merit inclusion, then feel free to nominate them for deletion, but beware making a WP:POINT. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gaijin42 You are missing another point that i believe i have enough authority backlinks to be counted as notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShareToGain (talk • contribs) 23:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to sign your comments. ::you could post the links you think are reliable sources with editors to the reliable sources noticeboard, and see if you can gather consensus that those sources are in fact reliable. If they were judged to be reliable, that would go a long way to helping your article survive. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin User:ShareToGain is the creator of this article (who allegedly has a COI). --Carbon Rodney 08:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This allegation is based on comments made on NawlinWiki's talk page - "our game" etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that user has changed their name from ShareToGain to OnlineGamesExpert to avoid any confusion. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Changing to delete, per further evaluation of the gamespot source, and re-reading the article. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Can you please tell me which websites do you say authoritative and which are not. The references i have are all submitted via editors and can not be submitted via any person. So i believe that all the references i have are should be counted as authoritative. ShareToGain (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You only get to vote once. As i said, if you want validation of if the sources are reliable or not, please post a question on the reliable sources noticeboard. It is my personal opinion that the sites you have linked to are more along the lines of blogs, rather than sites with a editorial staff, but I am not the final say in that (which is why you should go to the noticeboard) Gaijin42 (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this noticeboard ? ShareToGain (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard google is your friend. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) ShareToGain (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Video games Wikiproject has a massive list of reliable (and unreliable) sources relating specifically to video games at WP:VG/RS - X201 (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) X201 (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I doubt that the given sources would meet the criteria required by WP:VG/RS - X201 (talk) 09:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Nawlinwiki and X201. There doesn't appear to be any coverage from any third party, reliable sources. I don't feel the ones presented so far qualify as such. Sergecross73 msg me 16:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I doubt that there any sources. The ADfGirl184.44.131.140 (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing Admin - Even though the IP agrees with my stance, I feel obligated to mention that this is an IP with a history of bad faith !votes at AFD, who was, right after that comment, was blocked for disruptive editing, only to then be range-blocked right after that, for their long history of disruptive editing from different IPs. (See here.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:34, 11 January 2012 (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.