Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mata Nui Online Game

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 List of Bionicle media#Games. MBisanz ^talk 08:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mata Nui Online Game

This nomination is for both the Mata Nui Online Game and the Mata Nui Online Game II articles. These articles are about browser games that do not cite any sources to express the notability of the subjects. There is already much better articles at the BIONICLEsector01 Wiki, a wiki devoted to Bionicle, information about these games is already there and should stay there. I originally marked these articles for speedy deletion under CSD A7, as the articles seemed to just right fall under what that criteria specified, but recently an admin notified me that they aren't all the way there yet, suggested I list them here, so here they are! Most browser games aren't notable enough to qualify for a Wikipedia article. Remember that this nomination is for both articles. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 05:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep I was the admin who declined the speedy because I think there were some assertions of notability and they had significiant history. I've also found what appears to be a good number of reliable sources that would allow for the creation of a sourced article. I don't know of any general thought that browser games aren't notable, nor does the fact that if it it's covered somewhere else, it shouldn't be here. That said, I don't know enough about the game to really evaluate the sources, I want to pt them out there for someone who may be more familiar and can judge them. StarM 12:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change to weak delete/Merge in the face of those below who clearly understand the field more. However, there were still assertions of notability, which means it's not an A7. No issue with discussion, this is not a blp that needs handling right away. Is there perhaps a good merge target? Seems as if it's not independently notable per the comments below but could be discussed elsewhere? StarM 00:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If a merge were in order, the correct place would be List of Bionicle media#Games, where they're already mentioned. Without any secondary sources whatsoever, however, and with the two press releases I found being essentially content-free (they verify only the developer, the release date of the first game, and the planned release date of the second), it really isn't justifiable. The articles as they stand are unverifiable and almost completely comprised of original research. I'd only consider redirects as an alternative to salting in the face of persistent recreation. —Korath (Talk) 02:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - COmment if they're already mentioned there (I take your word, I can't get that page to load,, been having timeout issues on here tonight) then why not re-direct? I wouldn't mind deleting, creating re-direct and then protecting the re-direct. I won't, however, do that as I've already !voted but it seems to be a plausible solution as they're mentioned in that section and it could be a valid search term. StarM 03:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: Remember that these are browser games, not computer game software. They have no reliable sources to back up the statements made about the games, instead it's just all original research. Therefore the games are not notable enough to merit a suitable mention on Wikipedia. As I said before, there are already large and very good articles about these games at the BIONICLEsector01 Wiki (BS01), a large wiki with complete information about everything Bionicle, including these games. Readers looking for information on these games can go to BS01 to learn everything they would ever want to know about them. As BS01 does not have all the specific policies and guidelines that Wikipedia has, and as it is devoted to Bionicle information anyways, we can let them get their article back. If a game does not have any reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of it, it shouldn't get a Wikipedia article. Besides, these games' articles more constitute game guides than encyclopedia articles. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 06:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm leary of redirecting for three reasons:
      1. I intend to either remove or drastically trim the current mention there. I can't find anything in either the full articles or in the text currently at List of Bionicle media that I can verify without duplicating the original authors' original research by going to the site and playing the game myself, nor enough source material to verify more than the games' existence.
      2. They seem unlikely search targets. (Repeated recreation would prove me wrong.)
      3. I want to be sure the unsalvageable original research currently in these articles is deleted, not hidden behind a redirect for easy reversion or incorporation into other articles. I have no real objection to redirecting after deletion. —Korath (Talk) 07:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - All seem to be valid courses of action, but I don't think they preclude re-direction. I also tend to think that having the protected redirects point there keep from having to watch for re-creation in multiple venues. Those familiar with the topic can keep an eye on one place. I think what you intend to do should happen, but I don't think they can't happen if the re-direct occurs StarM 00:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 12:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 12:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know about this particular browser game but I do deal with a lot of the more obscure video game types. From what the articles are saying these games are being used as an advertising medium (browser/flash games are a hell of a lot more interesting than banner ads) which doesn't necessarily help in getting them reviewed as standalone games. Like any other game they need reviews for establishing notability and to provide materials to build a neutral and meaningful article, an initial search showed no such sources. What doesn't help is that Mata Nui appears in at least one commercially released Bionicle game, muddying searches. If no secondary sources are found it may be worth mentioning them somewhere and redirecting. Someone another 14:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The vast majority of the hits in StarM's news search do not mention the online game; "Mata Nui" is apparently a prominent character and island in Bionicle, so there's a lot of false positives. I've looked through them and done a few searches of my own, and have only found two exceedingly trivial mentions and two press releases. All that can be verified from third-party sources is that there are games playable on Bionicle's website; this doesn't even merit a mention in List of Bionicle media#Games. —Korath (Talk) 14:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I though it was meeting CSD A7. That just proves it right there. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 05:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Largely non-notable, in-universe, game guide information. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bionicle or Delete. Does it pass the general notability guideline? Not as far as I can tell from online sources[1]. Is it an officially licenced game? If so, then redirect to the parent article as a viable search term. Marasmusine (talk) 11:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing to build a proper article with or demonstrate notability. Like any other type of game, there needs to be either reviews or similar secondary sources. Someone another 22:07, 13 April 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.