Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tibia (computer game) (2nd 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 no consensus. WjBscribe 16:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tibia (computer game) (2nd nomination)[edit]

Delete - Only assertion of notability is a big number. Unsourced beyond fansites. Fails WP:ATT, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N and WP:WEB. DarkSaber2k 12:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete - Big number is sufficient assertion, in my opinion. This game has been mentioned in Polish media regarding its addictiveness, so it is certainly having a cultural impact. Anything with a cultural impact should be reachable via Wikipedia. Ivucica 14:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. DarkSaber2k 12:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the fact that this game has been ported to both Linux and a portable phone edition, as well as having had a firefox add-on developed to search the web for Tibia information. I've also found the following articles:

[1] <- ~~Indicates that Tibia is large enough to attract people trying to scam accounts~~ Sorry, this is actually another ten year announcement from a different source.

[2] <- This is the account scamming announcement.

[3] <- Indicates a total player base of 250,000 players

[4] <- Announces the fact Tibia has been around for ten years

I've seen others as well, but the computer I'm on refuses to load IGN and a few other sites, so I can't see if there's anything there. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 14:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I pointed out by linking to WP:BIGNUMBER, length of time and number of players are not useful for establishing notability. The article still fails WP:ATT, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N and WP:WEB. We have one story about account scamming, but then again, any web game that offers premium and free accounts attracts scammers. DarkSaber2k 14:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That still doesn't address link 3, an independant article which announces the fact the game's been around for ten years. I imagine that when I get home tonight I'll be able to scrounge up more sources in addition to those three. Plus, the article on account scamming is notable because it's a third party announcement. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 14:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, I did, it was the scammer story I didn't refute, just pointed out that having people trying to scam accounts on a game isn't exactly notable in itself.. WP:BIGNUMBER has numerous other related things on it, one of which mentions the length of time something has been around. DarkSaber2k 14:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'd argue that WP:BIGNUMBER doesn't apply here. This is not a first party source claiming that Tibia's been around for ten years, but an independant third party doing an article on Tibia being in existence for ten years. That's a big difference. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 14:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I disagree, as your are trying to assert 'It has been around ten years, it's notable' 'It's notable because it has 250,000 players.' Which is exactly what WP:BIGNUMBER is describing. BUT, the fact that there are articles at all goes some small way towards notability. DarkSaber2k 14:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No, that's NOT my argument. The contents of the articles indicates that Tibia has been around for ten years. My assertion of notability here is that Tibia is notable enough that two third party sources felt it was important enough to write articles about it being a decade old. I'm not saying "Tibia is ten years old and is thus notable", I'm saying "Tibia had two articles written about it being ten years old and is thus notable". If I wanted to just go for WP:BIGNUMBER, I'd just state the fact that according to the last AFD, the game's homepage was under 1,500 according to Alexa's traffic rankings. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 14:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I get you now, sorry for the misunderstanding. DarkSaber2k 14:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No worries. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 18:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough in my book. Has more members than alot of other MMORPG'S that are "notable" (EQ, AC, DAOC, AO, etc etc), and has a noticable enough existance. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 19:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep WP:BIGNUM is not policy and I don't agree with it. This game has a LOT of players (hundreds of thousands) world-wide (note 11 other languages whose wikipedias have articles about it), has a high Alexa ranking, a large fan-base, and is known by a lot of people, and therefore has wide impact. That's what notability is. It does need citations for its content, of course, but that's not what AfD is for. (Note that as a German game, it may unfortunately be harder to find English sources than we are used to.) — brighterorange (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable source about mobile phone edition — brighterorange (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No independent reliable sources presented. Ones listed above are either trivial listings (fileratings.com) or reprinted press releases on mmorpg.com. You need secondary sources to write an article, regardless of how many people play it. Wickethewok 17:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How about this? About 350,000 google hits...take your pick. Clicky --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

# of Google hits doesn't show notability - reliable sources do. Wickethewok 22:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its hard to find external sources for this type of thing. Its a notable game and has a large userbase, it may be of minority interest but its stands. Bjrobinson 17:54, 20 April 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.