Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civony

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civony[edit]

Civony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Evony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(renamed) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS: no references based on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Was previously moved to userspace (User:drAdamInCA/Civony) and restored before any editors had found reliable sources. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Wyatt Riott. Also warn drAdamInCA User:Valentine Smith about this behavior. Drawn Some (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, didn't mean to imply that User:drAdamInCA had restored it. It was actually User:Valentine Smith. Wyatt Riot (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's more complex than that. Original version deleted was userfied. User:Valentine Smith created a very short stub, that was again deleted. Deleting admin for that then restored at the request of another user, and the userspace version was them copied over. Messy but I can't see anything to suggest any bad faith. The article as the userfied version ended up referenced only to non-reliable sources and had chunks of original research, the version at the moment having those things stripped lacks any real sourcing other than the target website itself. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, what a headache. Regardless, it does not have references to support a verifiable article regardless of its history or notability or lack thereof. Drawn Some (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, but notorious in the blogosphere:[1][2][3][4]. This page is clearly part of their marketing campaign. Fences and windows (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of demonstrable notability. Yes, the site exists; yes, it is popular; yes, there are blog entries relating to it. However, none of these things qualify an article for inclusion. There is no significant coverage (barely any at all, in fact) in any reliable sources. No prejudice against future re-creation - when and if it becomes notable.  Frank  |  talk  10:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, self-referential, original research. Muranternet 16:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Because you're all insufferable. Cranston Lamont (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think personal attacks are valid arguments in a deletion discussion. Can you find any reliable sources covering this game? This would be a stronger argument that would convince me to keep the page. Cazort (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mainly because I created it, worked on it and I'm ticked that someone said it's part of the marketing campaign seeing how I do NOT work for UMGE but am a player who enjoys the game.Terryrayc (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have a reason based on Wikipedia policy to keep this article? This isn't a vote, it's an attempt to establish consensus based on the policies and guidelines of the Wikipedia project. Wyatt Riot (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I also agree with the above post. I started playing Civony (now Evony) in Early April 2009. The descriptions given are accurate. It should be mentioned that there is a lot of controversy surrounding the ability to progress and the incredibly huge cost for purchasing upgrades with real money. (Added by 142.25.40.250)
    • Is this controversy mentioned in any reliable sources? Wyatt Riot (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Depends on how you define reliable. If you do a google search you'll find thousands of writeups and debates on the issue. Also related to the Age of Kings theft, again you will find a lot of debates and writeups regarding the issue. Heck now there's a lot of debate going on because it seems UMGE stole to ad pictures they were using from another company. I'd expect lawsuits except they are in China and we know how well those lawsuits work.Terryrayc (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI I redirected the page from Civony to Evony, the offical new name.Terryrayc (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Though I am actively playing and enjoying the game, the article lacks reliable sources and I can't find any via Google. Just blog hits and forum posts. This may become notable. Heck it may become notable very soon, but its not notable yet and shouldn't have an article until it is and an article can be written that isn't based entirely on the official website and the writers personal experience (i.e. WP:OR. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am a new player to the game and found the article useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.243.83 (talk) 11:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though useful is not a reason to keep, I interpret the above comment to mean "informative about something important". There will obviously need to be a watch for NPOV. Requirements for just what sources count for computer games need to be interpreted flexibly, according to what is likely to be available for the subject being discussed. The general need for WP:Verifiability is policy, but the details for WP:Reliable Sources is a guideline. DGG (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • While, I take DGG's point, I don't think that we are setting the bar too high here. I was looking for, and couldn't find, things like PC Gamer or Gamespot, and came up empty. Indeed I didn't notice a subtantial review from even a blog type source, though I may have missed one. Most of the hits are capsule size reviews or comments on the recent marketing campaign. The games existence is certainly verifiable, though given the lack of linkable (as opposed to in game) documentation alot of the content in the article may not be. I would encourge DGG to specify what sources he feels are adequate since I didn't find any, either in my search or cited in the article detailed enough to base a full article on even assuming arguendo that blogs are reliable enough for this type of content. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judging from the article, this ongoing discussion and my own (internet) research - there is a complete lack of independent, reliable, sources. From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.". Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, an accepted Wikipedia guideline gives dozens of accepted reliable sources for video games and there are likely more out there, this game does not appear to have been covered by any of them. I do not think a subjective judgement - unsupported by sources - of a topic's importance or usefulness can be used to justify a Wikipedia article on that topic, anything and everything could be considered important or useful to someone. If a band is playing in my local bar it would be important to the local community and it would be useful to know about them, if the only coverage of them is their MySpace page then I would not think Wikipedia should have an article on them. Guest9999 (talk) 01:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this comment. I think discussion of subjective notions like how "interesting" a topic is do have their places in deletion discussions, but only in marginal cases. This article, as it stands, falls very solidly in the "no reliable sources" zone, and it is seeming increasingly unlikely that any will show up. Cazort (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe that such a game does have potential to be more than just locally known, now that they are running ads on YouTube. And I bet that if curious web surfers want more information, and they don't find it on Wikipedia, they might just create another page. GoldDragon (talk) 03:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you 100% that such a game has the potential to be more than locally known. But Wikipedia's notion of notability is not based on potential, it's based on reality. If this game later attracts attention and generates coverage in reliable sources then it becomes notable--but unless there are sources that haven't been presented here (and I searched and could not find them) it doesn't come anywhere near wikipedia's standards for notability. Cazort (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete unless reliable sources are found. The article is still essentially unsourced. Of the sources, only this one: [5] is independent of the official site for the game, and it is self-published (a personal site). This hardly establishes notability. The people arguing to keep have not found sources. I think they are going to need to find sources or explain why the current sources are adequate, in order for us to consider their recommendations to keep this article. Cazort (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - No references, no information that doesn't read like a manual to the game, nothing outstanding about the page that warrants an article. The toilet cubicle at North Sydney Station has had over 160000 users, yet it doesn't have an article.--rakkar (talk) 15:04, 10 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Civony&oldid=1070426749"