Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stendhal (computer game)

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 arguments for deletion seem to prevail over the arguments for retention in this case. MuZemike 15:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stendhal (computer game)

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

As far as I can tell, this game has not received any coverage from reliable publications, so is unlikely to be notable enough for inclusion. In fact, independent verification is an issue too. Marasmusine (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Marasmusine (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This game is regularly updated and the Wikipedia page links are all active and relevant to the game. There is no reason to remove this article.
Well, I gave two reasons to delete it, but I didn't provide links for those not familiar with Wikipedia. They are the WP:Notability guidelines and the WP:Verifiability policy. Marasmusine (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other things I've mentioned refer to how Wikipedia is not a directory, and WP:PROMOTION as a concern since the article reads as though it were self-published by an involved party and needs a neutral point of view written when the other concerns are addressed. Datheisen (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiki-link you critized was only added one and a half year after the article was created. I think it was NPOV when it was created and it is NPOV now mostly. In between there were some announcement style edits that have been removed by now. --Gamfa (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable, couldn't find any reliable sources out there. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreement with poster and Odie5533. The article certainly shouldn't be marked for speedy delete since it meets the A7 requirement of "existence, not notability", but to keep the article we do still need referenced sources to back that up. Ironically, one of the links listed on the page is "Wiki" and leading to quite literally an off-site Wiki-style information database for the game. I have no idea what category or tag you would give something like that, but simple reasoning would make one wonder why something would need a Wikipedia article if one of its external links is "Wiki". Alternate dimensions? Though the article is informational and doesn't give a self-promotional vibe, that link is highly suspicious as WP:COI; This article would be little more than a portal to suggest people go to the "real Wiki" for the game. WP:NOTDIR is what I see the list of concerns adding up to be. Even past that, the resources and link are self-promotional or irrelevant. Normally, articles that have existed this long don't reach AfD discussions, but it has apparently been hiding under the radar. Datheisen (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Stendhal was repeatably featured in the SourceForge newsletter (but i am not sure if that is more worthy than random blogs and game review sites). And it got some attention because it is used as the base for "Krakow Online" by the city of Krakow to present the city to tourists in an online world. There was some coverage about that in Polish i cannot find as I don't speak Polish.

The article was appointed for WP:PROD twice, deleted the last time therefor a couple of month ago. It was only recently restored because I asked for the wiki text in order to extends the article on Libregamewiki. In difference to the version that was deleted (which only lists the very high activity rating), there are the two new references (Krakow and the SF Newsletter). I don't know if that is sufficient to keep it in Wikipedia as I try to stay away from AfD. -- I am a contributor to both Stendhal and Wikipedia (using my real name for this article and discussion to make that obvious) --Hendrik Brummermann (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Featured"? Sourceforge is the host of the now-defuct Self-Promoting "Wiki" link. ~~Suspicious. Probably a lot easier to get featured on a a website you regularly contribute content to. Sorry, but it's a blatant COI to me.~~ ~~The only things in Wikipedia directing to this article are a few user pages talking about this very discussion, or the AfD lists. That would help show a lack of further impact.~~Datheisen (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edited for a chance to clarify; I admit I could have looked rude and I certainly didn't read over my comment very well before saving. I'm sticking with a Delete though... searches for content and news were blank and nothing that could be used as a 'rescue resource' stuck out to me. Datheisen (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The project is hosted on SF.net, except for the Wiki (!), main game server, and irc channel. SF.net is hosting a huge number of open source projects so getting mentioned in their newsletter is not something that happens easily. Anyway the other sources, "Gazeta Wyborcza" newspaper and GameStar are more reliable anyway. --Hendrik Brummermann (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this video game. Joe Chill (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(at this point an online article of GameStar and the newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza have been added as sources)

Keep: GameStar should be a valid source. The linked article, although in Polish is obviously not a press release since it mentioned that the server were offline on launch day). Having an MORGP developed by and on the official webpage of a large city is notably on its own. It is used in a Ph.D. research project, which unfortunately is not completed and therefor not published, yet. --Gamfa (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There was some coverage in Gazeta Wyborcza of the launch event of the Polish variant "Krakow Online Game" on 15., 16. and 18. December 2006. The electronic version of those articles is pay per view. But I guess the headings are a valid prove that it was mentioned on three succeeding days in that newspaper: [1] [2] [3] (Google Translate: [4] [5] [6]) -- I am a contributor to both Stendhal and Wikipedia (using my real name account for this article and discussion to make that obvious) --Hendrik Brummermann (talk) 07:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I'm not convinced about the significance of coverage from GameStar and Gazeta Wyborcza (the former being quite short, and the latter being pay-per-view and possibly just coverage of a press release), it's enough to show that there are at least reliable sources, at least enough to have the game included on some List articles. I'd like to hear what other people thing about these sources. Marasmusine (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there are enough reliable sources to warrant an article. --Odie5533 (talk) 02:08, 28 October 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.