Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ManagerZone

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 redirect to Power Challenge. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ManagerZone[edit]

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

Almost entirely reliant on primary sources (not guaranteed reliable), no particular indications of notability, major awards etc., refs leading to "You are not authorized to view this page" etc. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:48, 14 October 2011 (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) 00:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every single source in first-party or player-created (Wikis, off-site forums, etc.), except for one which is nothing but the victory of the game in a 2004 month-long per-vote popularity contest, that does not talk of the game further than the profile the game itself wrote and submitte to MPOGD. No notability is assessed whatsoever. {RefImprove} tag from Feb-2010 to Oct-2011, but was removed after the addition of the sources detailled above (not reliable sources, thus IMO the tag should have stayed). Page creator himself acknowledged the page had been deleted a number of times in the past in the page creation's edit summary. Salvidrim (talk) 03:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the references are simply to back up the explanation of game rules and thus could arguably be removed entirely. I'd like to draw reference to the similar Wiki page for Hattrick, which doesn't provide refs for game explanation either. That would eliminate many of the problematic references. I'll look into secondary sources for the charity work as well as anything that'll prove notability. Hattrick faced deletion in 2008 as well, and as far as I can tell was allowed to remain based on the number of users and a single article. That does not indicate it as being any more notable than ManagerZone at the time, though it does have more secondary sources included at present. Neoskywalker (talk) 07:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neoskywalker86 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Comment A secondary source titled "The greatest game in the world" isn't very persuasive when trying to assess notability. If anything, a quick skim leaves me the impression that tit is glorified publicity. But that's beside the point -- the primary sources are fine for fact-checking, but they do not grant any notability. They don't "need to go", as long as other independent sources offering reliable & significant coverage are found. Salvidrim (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which is exactly my point. If Hattrick can be allowed to stay based on that article (as far as I can tell) and allowed time to improve, i.e. it has provided some sources for notability through its involvement in academic work, then I don't see the rush to delete ManagerZone. While the ManagerZone entry has been around for a while now, it's not really been cleaned up and improved until recently. Neoskywalker (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Arguing for or against a deletion because of a consensus reached on another article is not a very solid argument (see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). Maybe I am misunderstanding your argument, but I understand "Hattrick was kept, thus ManageZone could be kept too". We should judge this article's notability on this article itself, not on consensus reached on something else, no matter how similar the subjects. Salvidrim (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Your "Hattrick" argument isn't very helpful unless you know why it was kept. Looking at one of it's past AFD's for Hattrick, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hattrick_(2nd_nomination) , it looks like it was kept due because people dug up reliable, third party sources. (It may have had more sources back then in 2008 than there are now? Or sometimes people find sources for articles in order to "win" an AFD, but then never actually add them to the article very well afterwards.)

Anyways, there's 2 ways to look at it. You could call the Hattrick situation irrelevant, because you're trying to use it's 2011 status to justify what happened 3 years ago in it's AFD. Or you can call it relevant, and it won it's AFD because of it's coverage in reliable, third party sources. Either way, this article needs more third party sources to survive. Sergecross73 msg me 16:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Due to my arguement above. Short version: lack of third party, reliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 16:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Power Challenge, per WP:ATD. The company is notable and news sites often mention the game when talking about the company: Gamastura.com, VentureBeat.com, EscapistMagazine.com, GamersHell.com. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Salvidrim (talk) 05:47, 21 October 2011 (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.