Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assault Of M-OEE8

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. Sandstein 08:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assault Of M-OEE8[edit]

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

Lacks any WP:SECONDARY. Fails WP:GNG. TheMagikCow (talk) 11:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Lack of secondary coverage. No evidence that this has any widespread notability outside of the game community. —C.Fred (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added a secondary source and am currently in the process of looking for more. Furthermore, the notability of this article comes from the record number of people involved, which was also cited as valid notability for the article Bloodbath of B-R5RB, who's record was broken by this engagement. 1adog1 (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the Bloodbath article, I see lots of solid, independent, reliable sources, including Wired, PC Gamer, and Discovery News. I don't see any sources of that calibre here. —C.Fred (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The secondary source I added was from PC Gamer. Also note that both the Wired and Discovery News articles took several days to be released after that event concluded (11 and 3 days respectively). Until that point (and even now) the vast majority of sources were from theMittani.com, a site run by one of the most prominent players from the event. 1adog1 (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1adog1 I would dirsct you to WP:ITSA, specifically point 3. TheMagikCow (talk) 15:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, and I'll continue to search for more sources to add unless a decision is made to delete the article (just found one from Polygon actually). But if there is no more major coverage than what we've so far discussed then I acknowledge the article probably does not meet the notability guideines. 1adog1 (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - while it would seem to be important for the number of gamers involved, the problem is the lack of independent reliable references here.... the PC gamer article being the only one of note. I've done a few searches... not that much substantial stuff coming up IMHO. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As non, a further point I would like to add is that as feww as, I believe, failing the overriding WP:GNG, it fails the WP:WEBCRIT. To pass that, it needs: multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. One PC Gamer source, and that is all there is on the web, does not cut it with me. TheMagikCow (talk) 15:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I only poked around with this for a little bit, but for those who say that there is a lack of sourcing, see the video game reliable sources custom Google search and search for "M-OEE8". The event goes by several names and appears to have had activity before the date mentioned in the article. At the very least, we should be looking at merging reliably sourced info back into the main article, not deletion. czar 08:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's gotten coverage in other RS since the AfD started. [1], [2], [3], [4]. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note that these sources, above, have in-depth coverage about the event in question and from RS outlets such as Der Standard, an Austrian daily newspaper, PC Games, a German magazine, Gameplanet, which is on the Video Game WikiProject's reliable source list, not primary sources. Some RS also currently exist in the article as well (e.g. Polygon, PC Gamer) ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the sources identified above as well as PCGamer indicate that there is sig coverage for WP:GNG to be passed.Foreign language sources are allowed to contribute to GNG. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AfD was started just a few hours after the article's creation, and appears to have been further developed since the first couple "delete" votes. Some more comments are still needed to forge consensus I think. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete entire article is written "in-universe" and is difficult to comprehend, still lacks reliable sources. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Writing in-universe is a common problem with Eve related articles, so much detail goes into these battles that some knowledge of the game is almost always required to get a full understanding of what's going on (Just look at the mess that is the Eve Online main page). Nevertheless I'll add a couple of paragraphs to the background section to make it easier to understand. 1adog1 (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Youtube is not a reliable source. The only reliable sources in the article are pcgamer.com & polygon.com that basically reiterate the same details of the event, but Wikipedia isn't the news. Fails WP:EVENTCRITERIA. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube would be a valid primary source in this case, given that the videos are direct recordings of the engagement (I'm aware that secondary sources are preferred but they do add a decent amount of information). Notability is currently in dispute, the current pro argument being that it is the largest single battle to ever occur within a video game. 1adog1 (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All arguments aside, this is a simple Notability issue. Substantial Coverage in Reliable, Independent Sources - that's what's missing. Primary sources do not suddenly become reliable just because there are a lot of them. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Oh for pity's sake. Where to start? WP:NOTNEWS? WP:EVENTCRITERIA? WP:COVERAGE? Why, yes, a few thousand players of this computer game participated in this extremely ephemeral event, covered exclusively in their own walled garden of websites. By way of compare and contrast, there was another recent event. It took place last Saturday, a football game between the New England Patriots and the New York Jets. Rather than a few thousand computer gamers, the announced attendance in Foxboro was over 66,000. The game was nationally broadcast on CBS, to a viewing audience of several million. The game received extensive coverage both before and after, and not from websites nowhere near the Alexa top ten thousand, but from major news sources such as the Boston Globe, New York Times, New York Post, ESPN and so on. (And not just a handful of cites; if I found fewer than a hundred cites from Pulitzer Prize-winning outlets, it'd only be because I stopped trying.) That game doesn't have a Wikipedia page, and were anyone to try to put one up, it'd be quickly AfDed. Ravenswing 00:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry it looks like I've completely misinterpreted what you were saying here, if you don't mind I'd like to wipe that and offer an actual rebuttal - While individual NFL games may not get their own Wikipedia pages, Superbowl games do. These are by no means the largest gatherings to ever occur, but they are significant within the scope of sports. This is a similar situation here. While 6,000 people may not be a lot in the grand scheme of things, in the scope of video games it is absolutely mind boggling that such a large scale event was even possible. This isn't just big for Eve, this is the largest known battle to ever occur inside ANY video game. 6,000 people, not just gathering, but participating, with tens of fleet commanders giving orders to groups of hundreds each, while also coordinating with each other to keep the battle going. The amount of organization that goes into a battle like this is on a similar scale to real military conflicts. With this in mind I'll take you back to your NFL analogy - There were four times more players participating in this one battle at one time than there are players in the entire NFL. THAT, is where the significance is. 1adog1 (talk) 08:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Happily, notability standards are not set based on what individual groups, hobbies or pastimes find notable or significant -- which altogether too often are self-serving -- but are subject to review across Wikipedia. Otherwise, you'd see articles for individual iterations of science fiction conventions, or perhaps for individual iterations of Pennsic, the largest annual battle in the Society for Creative Anachronism, which have average attendance over 10,000, both which are highly significant within those hobbies. That being said, if you can cite a video game battle that has had the international media coverage of a Superbowl, with hundreds of millions of TV viewers and tens of thousands of newspaper articles, you may count upon my support of that event meeting Wikipedia notability standards. Ravenswing 09:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not required "hundreds of millions of TV viewers and tens of thousands of newspaper articles" for an event to be significant. In fact, there are no set numbers or bare minimum number of people who need to care about a subject for it to be significant. I'll bite though and list a few gaming related articles already here. Citing the obvious one first, the Bloodbath of B-R5RB, which was directly succeeded by this battle for record number of players. Looking back at that article, it faced several issues related to notability, but ultimately went on to become a Good Article and even made the front page at one point. If Wikipedia required millions of onlookers for an event to be significant, we wouldn't have gaming articles like the Corrupted Blood incident, The International 2016, Capcom Cup 2016, Evo 2016, or SoCal Regionals 2016 (notice that all of these are articles for the individual year and not "all encompassing"). CZAR already mentioned that there are several more articles related to this event on sites meeting Wikipedia:VG/RS, and looking at the custom search he linked, there's more than enough there to establish "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guidelines. 1adog1 (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're not comparing like with like - if you compare this article to the articles you have provided as examples, there's one obvious difference. Significant Coverage in Independent, Reliable Sources. That should speak for itself really - there's simply no significant coverage on the level that the other articles have. That's not a problem you can overcome by going round in circles here - the usual reliable sources have chosen not to cover this subject and that's that. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which is the exact reason why we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. Normal journalism usually doesn't cover gaming related topics, so there is a standard set of reliable sources for gaming related content. Here's a few more sources from those that I have yet to add [5] [6] [7] and [8] (more related to the war as a whole but adds a decent amount of detail to what was going on). I'm no expert on the subject, but 6 reliable secondary sources along with several more primary sounds like decent coverage. 1adog1 (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, you're talking in circles here. If you don't want this event to be compared to Superbowls, don't raise the comparison in the first place. The objections people are raising are less based around WP:VG's rather gigantic list of "reliable" sources -- something of an issue in of itself -- than other factors repeatedly raised above. Ravenswing 06:43, 30 December 2016 (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.