Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wewaii
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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wewaii[edit]
- Wewaii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable browser game with no references from reliable, third party sources: Fails WP:WEB and WP:V. None of the current sources are reliable according to the WikiProject Video games guide to sources. I used the WPVG custom Google search and got zero results. The awards in the "Recognition" section are from sites that aren't a reliable measure of the game's notability as they allow fan voting and have skewed reviews. Wyatt Riot (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Wyatt Riot (talk) 14:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete sourcing does not provide significant coverage, reliability is dubious. Can't find anything usable to save this one. --Teancum (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep apart from the list given on the press releases page on the TravianGames site, which may or may not be reliable, Wewaii is also mentioned in this academic paper published by IEEE. --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The press page is pretty bad; the sites are little more than linkfarm review sites for browser games. The IEEE source is a single-mention name drop in a paper presented in a conference, not the significant coverage that WP:GNG requires. Wyatt Riot (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the de:Deutscher Computerspielpreis award? The German Wikipedia seems to suggest that the company is supported by lots of other large companies and the Federal Government Commissioner for Culture and Media (using Google Translate). Doesn't that make it a notable award? --Joshua Issac (talk) 09:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally wouldn't consider it because it's not well known outside Germany. It's essentially a German award for Germans: just about anybody can enter, including people outside the industry, as long as they're German. Wyatt Riot (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added a Deutscher Computerspielpreis reference to the article because it covers the subject significantly. I think, with that and the Covus reference (browsergames.de), the article passes GNG. --Joshua Issac (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Covus is the same company that runs browser1.de, which was specifically marked as unreliable by WikiProject Video games for the same type of thing that browsergames.de is now doing, such as giving every game a 5/5 rating, no author by-lines, no discussion of editorial policy, uncritical trivial reviews of games (bordering on press releases), and fan-submitted content and voting. The Deutscher Computerspielpreis award appears legit, or at least they're sponsored by some larger companies, but I still stand by my characterization of the award as being a minor one, especially since it's German-only and essentially anyone can enter. Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that while browsergames.de is run by the same company, it does not have the same issues. It does not give every game a 5* rating,[1][2] (although a lot of them do seem have 5*) and the readers' votes stay separate from the editors' ratings. The editor list can be found here. The user submitted content is the "Eure Wertung" game rating and the comments as suggested on the "about" page; many online articles also have comments sections. There is a terms and conditions page, but I don't know if it has anything about editorial policy. --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Covus is the same company that runs browser1.de, which was specifically marked as unreliable by WikiProject Video games for the same type of thing that browsergames.de is now doing, such as giving every game a 5/5 rating, no author by-lines, no discussion of editorial policy, uncritical trivial reviews of games (bordering on press releases), and fan-submitted content and voting. The Deutscher Computerspielpreis award appears legit, or at least they're sponsored by some larger companies, but I still stand by my characterization of the award as being a minor one, especially since it's German-only and essentially anyone can enter. Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added a Deutscher Computerspielpreis reference to the article because it covers the subject significantly. I think, with that and the Covus reference (browsergames.de), the article passes GNG. --Joshua Issac (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally wouldn't consider it because it's not well known outside Germany. It's essentially a German award for Germans: just about anybody can enter, including people outside the industry, as long as they're German. Wyatt Riot (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the de:Deutscher Computerspielpreis award? The German Wikipedia seems to suggest that the company is supported by lots of other large companies and the Federal Government Commissioner for Culture and Media (using Google Translate). Doesn't that make it a notable award? --Joshua Issac (talk) 09:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The press page is pretty bad; the sites are little more than linkfarm review sites for browser games. The IEEE source is a single-mention name drop in a paper presented in a conference, not the significant coverage that WP:GNG requires. Wyatt Riot (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:58, 15 October 2010 (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.