Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elendor
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 No consensus, default to Keep. WaltonOne 18:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article fails WP:NOR, and it's not notable. Delete GreenJoe 00:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of coverage from independent sources Corpx 02:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non notable video game, fails WP:N and WP:V Giggy UCP 03:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read the article? It's not a "video game". It is an online roleplaying game. Carcharoth 17:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable game and violates. WP:NOR Oysterguitarist 07:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge(changing, see below Carcharoth 12:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)) along with any non-notable content in Category:Middle-earth role-playing games (which I just created). Keep the notable ones as separate articles. I would ask the people discussing here to tell us which of the games in that category are notable. See also Category:Middle-earth video games and Middle-earth in video games. I propose that a similar article (maybe Middle-earth in role-playing games) be started as the merge destination. This process, although it will take longer, and will involve some work and writing, will be more productive than nominating individual articles for deletion. See Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. Carcharoth 10:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Keep - Changing as I'm convinced by CBD's comments below, though a merge may ultimately be best. The article says "Established in October 1991, Elendor is the oldest and most popular Tolkien-based MUSH on the internet." - "most popular" may be overstating it, but "oldest" is definitely notable. On a brief Google search I found the following and I'll add them to the external links: [1], [2], [3]. That last one is not the best source, but the other two look OK to me. Some quotes "Founded in 1991, Elendor is the oldest continuously-running Tolkien role-playing game on the internet." and "Elendor is famed as the largest MUSH on the net." Carcharoth 12:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The article needs an 'unreferenced' tag, but being unreferenced does not make something 'original research' or 'non notable'. Look at any list of 'top ten' MU* servers in existence and this one will be on there. It may not be the most notable MU* in history, but it's close enough that the matter would be subject to debate (personally I'd say that PernMUSH was more significant overall). We have articles on hundreds of computer games less notable than this. I'll try to dig up and add some references, but c'mon... must we really go around deleting everything which isn't extensively documented? --CBD 11:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Call me old, but I pottered in this a long time ago and it weaned me off Hammurabi. cheers. Anthony Chidiac--Achidiac 12:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Achidiac (talk · contribs), Rdpaperclip (talk · contribs), T3Smile (talk · contribs), and 60.241.91.14 (talk · contribs) have been blocked as sock puppets. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Achidiac. -- Jreferee t/c 17:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a new user. GreenJoe 14:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Who was editing other topics before this AfD existed. --CBD 13:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a new user. GreenJoe 14:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The links above aren't reliable sources. For instance, the game review isn't made by a reasonably authoritative website like GameSpot. The other 2 appear to be directory links. In fact, that's what I see when I use the search engine, hence reliable sources aren't avail. (And it fails to satisfy WP:N)--Kylohk 10:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yahoo! Internet Life was 'reasonably authoritative' when they named this the best Tolkien community site on the web. Obviously you aren't going to find a GameSpot review because they only review commercial games... not free MU*s. The sites which DO review free MU*s rate this as one of the best... but as they don't cover commercial games they apparently aren't 'reasonably authoritative' about the things which they DO cover... that those commercial game sites DON'T. Or something? --CBD 13:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, but in the hope of finding more sources, is any of the stuff in MUSH or in the articles in Category:MU* games helpful for the more reliable sources Kylohk is looking for? Carcharoth 10:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In such a borderline case, they ought to present a source with a link. Also, they should have at least listed its "Access date" so people may roll back and see for themselves. Had the magazine been on paper, it might have been a different story since a back issue can be ordered to verify it.--Kylohk 10:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you willing to accept what it says on their website? See http://www.elendor.net/ where it says "15th anniversary, truly making it one of the longest continually-running games on the Internet." and "GAME OF THE MONTH" ON MUDMAGIC" and "Elendor was declared the "Best Tolkien Community Site" on the net according to a poll conducted by Yahoo Internet Life magazine!" and "We were featured on German and Austrian television in December 2001". If you are willing to accept that MU* sites should be covered at all by Wikipedia, then what standards do you hold them to? Oldest? Most popular? Most notable? How do you measure notability for an MU*? Carcharoth 12:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it depends on whether a specific notability guideline has been set for "games". But I won't take the official site's word for it. I have a tendency to trust sites like GameSpot, IGN, or any equivalently authoritative website or magazine in a country. Having won an award is important, but the fact that it's won an award must be mentioned by reliable sources that can be easily verified. (There may be a chance that it's made up). I've seen articles related to games that get deleted even though it claims to be mentioned by PCGamer, because the "Keepers" can't dig up the exact issue and page number where the mention exists.--Kylohk 12:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you willing to accept what it says on their website? See http://www.elendor.net/ where it says "15th anniversary, truly making it one of the longest continually-running games on the Internet." and "GAME OF THE MONTH" ON MUDMAGIC" and "Elendor was declared the "Best Tolkien Community Site" on the net according to a poll conducted by Yahoo Internet Life magazine!" and "We were featured on German and Austrian television in December 2001". If you are willing to accept that MU* sites should be covered at all by Wikipedia, then what standards do you hold them to? Oldest? Most popular? Most notable? How do you measure notability for an MU*? Carcharoth 12:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In such a borderline case, they ought to present a source with a link. Also, they should have at least listed its "Access date" so people may roll back and see for themselves. Had the magazine been on paper, it might have been a different story since a back issue can be ordered to verify it.--Kylohk 10:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, but in the hope of finding more sources, is any of the stuff in MUSH or in the articles in Category:MU* games helpful for the more reliable sources Kylohk is looking for? Carcharoth 10:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yahoo! Internet Life was 'reasonably authoritative' when they named this the best Tolkien community site on the web. Obviously you aren't going to find a GameSpot review because they only review commercial games... not free MU*s. The sites which DO review free MU*s rate this as one of the best... but as they don't cover commercial games they apparently aren't 'reasonably authoritative' about the things which they DO cover... that those commercial game sites DON'T. Or something? --CBD 13:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The two independent reviews listed under external links now and the Yahoo Internet Life mention (well, have to believe that of course) are enough to satisfy WP:N. --Allefant 13:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I edited it to clean it up, give it a more encyclopedic reading and a NPOV. Like any other article on this site, more references will eventually be added. Just because you don't know about this game, doesn't mean it should be deleted. There are tons of articles on this site that are just snippets or snubs that someone may want to know more information about by searching for it on Wikipedia. - Cyborg Ninja 04:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep: Although the claim of notability (the Yahoo award) is strong, there is still a problem with verifiability. The theonering.net review by "Smaug" does not appear to be staff-written ([4]) so I suppose that makes it a reader-written review (which brings WP:Reliable sources into question.) The Mud Magic link is for a directory entry ("trivial" per WP:V). For the time being, I can give the benefit of the doubt. MarašmusïneTalk 14:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MarašmusïneTalk 14:28, 26 July 2007 (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.