Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloodbath of B-R5RB

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodbath of B-R5RB[edit]

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

Media coverage is short and attributable to sensationalism (see: WP: PERSISTENCE and WP: SENSATION), and the event has no established notability or significance outside of the game itself. The article makes extensive reference to entities, tactics, and events not discussed anywhere else. The title is also not NPOV. — scetoaux (T|C) 06:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the tactics are referenced here, here, and especially here.--¿3family6 _contribs 21:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From the article, "Joystiq called the battle potentially the largest recorded PvP battle in any game to date." I think that this is the article's best claim to significance outside the game. The article itself does often refer to various entities and events that certainly do not meet notability guidelines. These references make it very hard to understand the events covered by the article within context. Xanatos290 (talk) 08:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed with Xanatos above. If this is indeed the "largest recorded PvP battle" in gaming history, then it is a significant cultural event in itself and a record of it ought to persist in Wikipedia. Agreed that it should be edited for an audience is not familiar with the internal mechanics of the game itself, or of multiplayer online games in general. damian0815 (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commment I'm the article's creator, so I will refrain from voting. I agree that the aftermath section has too much material sourced only to primary sources, and that information could be condensed. If someone with different eyes than mine can edit the article so that it is more understandable, I would appreciate it. I myself am unfamiliar with the game, but I think I've become too hyperfocused to be able to clean it up effectively. I could definitely highlight what makes it notable.

As to the title, how is that an issue of NPOV? That's what participants called it, and Polygon, Joystiq, Inqisitr, Wired UK, and TechSpot all called the battle that as well, so I don't see why that's a problem.

As for whether it's sensationalism, while news stories did get carried away with it, and early stories had widely different and highly exaggerated cash numbers, I think the level of coverage in so many different sources combined with coverage of the battle lasting over a week, qualifies the subject as notable. And some articles, such as this one, this one. and this one actually took time to delve into the details of how PLEX conversion works and didn't just spout off numbers. Also, news coverage [1] [2] of CCP Game's plan to build a real-life monument to the game also mention the battle, though granted this announcement is only about a week after the battle. Ars Technica the battle as an opportunity to talk about how the game builds emotional investment in players.

Fourth point: The battle attracted 15,000 players to try out the game, though it's too early at this point to know if they will stay. I might be getting into unwarranted extrapolation, but last year, Reuters mentioned in an article on Iceland's economy that CCP Games is possibly the most important company for that country's desperate economy, so this battle, by attracting new players, potentially has real world economic impact.

Finally, and probably most importantly, as was mentioned above by another editor, the battle was quite possibly the largest PvP engagement ever [3], [4].--¿3family6 _contribs 15:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some cleanup to the article, if someone wants to do more, please feel free.--¿3family6 _contribs 21:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Player versus player - As laid out by the sources presented above, the event is certainly notable as the "largest recorded PvP battle", and is notable in the context of online gaming, but I do not believe it has enough independant notability to be featured in a standalone article. The PvP article should be expanded to include notable events which generated press coverage independant of the games in which they took place, preferably from a real-world prespective. This is probably going to be a landmark in the history of PvP. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I reviewed the DYK, and I gave the nominator grief over the $300,000 figure, which isn't really real money, when it came to running a hook. However, for purposes of notability, it makes absolutely no difference whether the notability is based on truth or lies, deserved or not. Notable is notable - sources wrote, so we can read and summarize them. I need only name any number of celebrities famous for nothing but being famous, which we have articles about. I'd seen these stories on my own, before I ever went to do a QPQ, and I appreciated greatly that we had a Wikipedia article that got to the bottom of it. Additionally, there is a gaming magazine saying it is one of the largest of a certain kind of battle in video gaming so far. I should note that I have not generally been very friendly to featuring video games; I wouldn't support this if it hadn't made some kind of lasting impression. Wnt (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned on the articles talk page, why would Corrupted Blood incident be notable enough for its own article while this isn't? 178.75.185.119 (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Corrupted Blood incident has fully half the page devoted to its use as a case study in real world epidemiology and (to a lesser extent) anti-terrorism. This gives it a considerable boost to scope and WP:PERSISTENCE. Binkyuk (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. While I don't particularly like it, this does seem to meet the WP:GNG. The variety of sources and their reliability suggests that this is not WP:SENSATION. It's too early to tell whether it will pass or fail WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:LASTING. Binkyuk (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An example of post-event analysis (though this writer is awfully pretentious in the terms that they throw around): [5]--¿3family6 _contribs 22:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ample secondary/tertiary sources and difficulty of merging this into main game article. Tezero (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple sources to different news outlets throughout the article. Prose, NPOV, etc. could be improved, but that's not reason to delete the article outright. As to avoid being repetitive of posts above my own, I will simply agree with their reasoning for why the article can be considered acceptable under notability standards. --Nicereddy (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2014 (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.