Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OGame (3rd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 16:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OGame

Article has come up twice for deletion already. There are still no multiple, reliable sources able to establish notability. Delete as per WP:WEB. Peephole (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There's a reliable source and it's failed two AfD's previously.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia policies require multiple reliable sources. --Peephole (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "No concensus" is not a "failed AfD". Marasmusine (talk) 12:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response--Wikipedia guidelines require multiple reliable sources. And "no consensus" is a de facto "keep" decision.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Google search returns more results for OGame than browser game and browsergame. --Joshua Issac (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I get 427 unique hits for "Ogame", 486 for "browser game" and 532 for "browsergame". Marasmusine (talk) 12:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - How do you find out whether the hits are unique or not? Do you go through every single page? OGame (12,800,000), browser game (7,560,000), browsergame (7,690,000). --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here's another source that is somewhat decent. I'll try and look for some more. SharkD (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've removed the reference to heise.de as it was referencing Wikipedia. The br-online citation appears to be dead. PTD Magazine looks satisfactory. The notability guideline (not policy) suggests multiple significant sources, so at the moment I favour "inclusion in an article on a broader topic" (List of multiplayer browser games or somesuch.) Marasmusine (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see Talk:OGame#heise.de. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- web-archive.org brings it up here. MuZemike 04:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a well written article, and it provides a lot of information you could not find elsewhere. Also, there are several reliable third-party sources about OGame. -electric Rush | Sign! 18:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per ElectricRush. This is an article with a lot of important and well-written info. It does not deserve to be deleted. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 21:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but definitely cleanup — there exist, apparently, two reliable sources establishing a minimal degree of notability in SharkD's find and the one found in the previous AFD. Actually, it is not that well-written, and some cleanup is necessary (that is immaterial as to whether or not this should be deleted, however). MuZemike 04:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per MathCool10 and ElectricRush. I would also invoke IAR to combat the web notability guideline, because I think it's a pretty notable strategy browsergame, alongside with Travian. Also, the fact that it placed 3rd in the 2006 Superbrowsergame Award elistabishes some notability, as per the guideline. Nyme (talk) 12:34, 27 January 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.