Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolution (MMOG)
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. - Mailer Diablo 16:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Evolution (MMOG)[edit]
Non-notable MMOG. Fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Not even an assertion of notability is given. No reliable sources. Prod removed by anon without improvement. Delete. Huon 15:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Copied from the article's talk page, and probably a Keep:
- This page is, or rather will be, a valied Wikipedia entry. It is an article on a MMOG with a growing community and is definitely not an article that should be cosidered for deletion. yes it is a work in progress and improvemnts will be made to the entry in the near future as more and more users of the website contribute, in true Wikipedia fashion.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brzak (talk • contribs) 16:39, September 25, 2006 (UTC), copied by Huon 17:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Reason on article's talk page seems to be crystal ball gazing. Agent 86 20:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment you must not be a player of EVO.Evil oranges 22:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Reason major changes to article made, notability reasons added. Recently featured on digg.com PS - sry for the mix up on adding the article to this section ;)JMJimmy 17:07, 25 September 2006 (EST)
- Comment: The revisions have not persuaded me to change my mind. The lack of notability is highlighted by statements such as "The game is still considered to be in the beta stage of development". Smacks of crystal ball gazing. Agent 86 22:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Gmail is considered to be in the beta stage. Evolution is a full, 100% functional, game with 3100 active members. Like Gmail, Evolution is undergoing frequent updates & improvements that necessitate the beta term. I think the significant difference between the traditional beta and the current usage of beta should apply, in that the traditional referrers to a program that has a limited membership chosen by the developer whereas the current beta term referrers to a working product in development with unlimited access by the general public. ". JMJimmy 22:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The revisions have not persuaded me to change my mind. The lack of notability is highlighted by statements such as "The game is still considered to be in the beta stage of development". Smacks of crystal ball gazing. Agent 86 22:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The above comment says that "Evolution is a full, 100% functional game with 3100 active members. Like Gmail, Evolution is undergoing frequent updates & improvements that necessitate the beta term." This is not the case, as shown by this game's bugs, down time, and the fact that most of the 3100 active players are inactive. I also think it's unfair to compare Evolution to Gmail because Evolution's been a beta since 2001 if I'm not mistaken, and very little has changed since that time. The chances for Evolution to be fully completed are slim to none. DepressedStone 20:21, 26 September 2006 (PST) The above opinion is not by User:DepressedStone, but by 71.104.31.159 (contribs). --Huon 09:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment what basis in fact do you have for these statements 71.104.31.159? 5 major code revisions, major new features added in each, plus bug fixes all throughout. Downtime is a reflection on the hosting company and has nothing to do with the article - also no basis in fact as the only downtime experienced in recent memory has been due to scheduled maintenance on the servers. Due to the game's structure the 3100 active members are active since July 19th 2006 when the round started. All inactive accounts were removed at the end of the last round. 15:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment If this post is by DepressedStone, it is worth noting that DepressedStone was banned from Evolution due to causing a public nuisance by posting fradulent information in the game's forums. --Neondragon 04:18, 29 September 2006 (BST)
- Keep this WILL become a decent wiki article. the players of EVO are very active, and this will soon be a useless talk page.Evil oranges 01:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but the article should just be a short entry for now. Not notable enough for a full blown article yet.--Hatch68 02:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. —Wrathchild (talk) 12:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The Kinslayer 14:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment can we have a reason, or are you wanting us to delete your page? your vote reads "DELETE The Kinslayer". Evil oranges 02:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Sorry, sure! It's been going since 2001, it has only 3000 odd members and is not notable in the slightest, there are a gillion more notable web games. I say delete, and if by the slightest of slight chances this game actually becomes notable, then it can have a page. The Kinslayer 07:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is the logic I have come to hate about Wikipedia. Chron X was a similar sized game, now pretty much defunct - gets a page, Eve Online, not really notable, small community for the age of the game and the advertising that was put behind it - also insignifcant compared to RuneScape or World of Warcraft - gets a page. A small company with no funding, based around a community of players, steadily growing over 5 years (most games begin declining after their 3-4th year peak), can't get a page because someone thinks creating something like this community "is not notible". Creating a web based game of this complexity and depth is notible in itself - to keep it running and consistantly grow the community for 5 years with no money is notible in intself. Wikipedia is becoming too elitist and who decides, and at what point is a community based around a game created by a 15 year old is notable enough? 5,000? 25,000? 100,000? 500,000? I'm sorry these comments are not soley based on impartial facts, and I agree there's more work to be done on the article, but it makes me angry both when the above occurs and when I took another article, changed it to fit Evo, and expanded on it signifcanly - yet it's not good enough for Wiki. All because people who may no nothing about programming or games, and who have most likely never taken a look at it, deem it "unnotible" or "crystal ball gazing". Again, I'm sorry, but I feel strongly about this. The amazing thing is, I didn't even know about the game until it was featured on Digg a week or so ago and I can see the importance of it after playing it for a short time. JMJimmy 12:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Comment'. EVE Online got lots of ink in the CFG and MMO press. Has this? —Wrathchild (talk) 12:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Jimmy, the more you say, the more you sound like you have a biased interest in this, and the less impartial you sound. The Kinslayer 12:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are no reliable, independent sources for Evolution. Digg doesn't count, because the content is user-supplied, and the guy who wrote that article clearly was connected to the MMOG. The Evo Wiki obviously isn't independet. While I didn't check EVE online, I could easily find an external review to add to the Chron X article (and if I hadn't been able, I would have nominated Chron X for deletion, too). If something similar could be found for Evolution, I might change my opinion - but right now, the article fails too many of Wikipedia's guidelines - see WP:RS and WP:OR. --Huon 13:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ok, taking a step back, I can understand it doesn't have sources to cite other than random blogs that mention it such as http://www.robocrow.com/?q=node/2 however traditional media would never pick up a story about a non-commercial game unless it was a blowup sucess. I suppose I have an issue with the wiki rules more than the fact this article is up for deletion. The rules seem to only want to document information that has money behind it in one form or another. JMJimmy 19:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is the logic I have come to hate about Wikipedia. Chron X was a similar sized game, now pretty much defunct - gets a page, Eve Online, not really notable, small community for the age of the game and the advertising that was put behind it - also insignifcant compared to RuneScape or World of Warcraft - gets a page. A small company with no funding, based around a community of players, steadily growing over 5 years (most games begin declining after their 3-4th year peak), can't get a page because someone thinks creating something like this community "is not notible". Creating a web based game of this complexity and depth is notible in itself - to keep it running and consistantly grow the community for 5 years with no money is notible in intself. Wikipedia is becoming too elitist and who decides, and at what point is a community based around a game created by a 15 year old is notable enough? 5,000? 25,000? 100,000? 500,000? I'm sorry these comments are not soley based on impartial facts, and I agree there's more work to be done on the article, but it makes me angry both when the above occurs and when I took another article, changed it to fit Evo, and expanded on it signifcanly - yet it's not good enough for Wiki. All because people who may no nothing about programming or games, and who have most likely never taken a look at it, deem it "unnotible" or "crystal ball gazing". Again, I'm sorry, but I feel strongly about this. The amazing thing is, I didn't even know about the game until it was featured on Digg a week or so ago and I can see the importance of it after playing it for a short time. JMJimmy 12:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Rome wasn't built in a day, give it a chance. 87.102.12.100 14:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's not about giving it a chance. It's about whether or the not the game as it is NOW warrants having an article, And it doesn't. And FYI 99.9% of the time, if a game like this hasn't made it in FIVE years, it's not gonna make it.The Kinslayer 14:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's not about "making it" the game isn't trying to be a commercial success. It's about documenting something that a 15 year old created that is followed by thousands around the world. And to your earlier comment, I'm bias in that I care, yes. I have no affiliation with the game other than that I've played it for a short time, and feel it is deserving of an article. JMJimmy 19:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's not about giving it a chance. It's about whether or the not the game as it is NOW warrants having an article, And it doesn't. And FYI 99.9% of the time, if a game like this hasn't made it in FIVE years, it's not gonna make it.The Kinslayer 14:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 17:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:V, WP:RS. Wickethewok 15:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Wickethewok. note: I made listed pages links for convenience. Altair 17:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. While I'm in favor of keeping articles about released commercial games, this strikes me as a hobbyist project that doesn't seem to fit those criteria. In particular, the article doesn't provide any information about why a significant number people would be interested in looking for this in an encyclopedia. Keep in mind that there are other plenty of other options for promoting your project, such as starting your own wiki. Also, Digg is not a good primary source, because there are no restrictions for listing things there. --Alan Au 20:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment These Alexa rankings show how Evolution has surpassed Planetarion.com in terms of web site traffic, and Planetarion has a Wikipedia article. Also, this isn't an attempt at publicity, but seeing as you mention starting our own wiki, I'll happily supply you with the link to it. Thirdly, while there are no restrictions placed on articles submitted to Digg, what is notable are the 456 users who decided to digg the article. --Neondragon 04:18, 29 September 2006 (BST)
- Comment. Planetarion already survived an Articles for Deletion debate. Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Planetarion for more details. Also consider that Planetarion had tens of thousands of players, while Evolution apparently has only 3100. --Alan Au 03:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - So far, the only real reason people seem to want to keep this article is for crufting reasons. Also, only 456? Out of the billions of people online? Thirdly, Planetarion regularly eithe rwins or finishes in the top five of the Game of the Month poll over at www.mpogd.com. The Kinslayer 07:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - How is this any different than Digg? It's just user submitted voting just like Digg. And it's interesting that a single editor choosing to place an article in a paid media forum is valid yet 456 editors in an unpaid media forum are not valid. Go figure.JMJimmy 13:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The reference was to the fact that Planetarion wins awards, making it notable, whereas Evolution has won nothing, and has not one single claim to notability. 'something that a 15 year old created that is followed by thousands around the world.' (your words) is the best description you can come up with, and your this articles biggest (and only) defender. Thousands across the world equates to less than .001% of the total net population, and even less of the worlds population. TENS of thousands might possibly swing this discussion, but there aren't, so it wont. The Kinslayer 14:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - How is this any different than Digg? It's just user submitted voting just like Digg. And it's interesting that a single editor choosing to place an article in a paid media forum is valid yet 456 editors in an unpaid media forum are not valid. Go figure.JMJimmy 13:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment These Alexa rankings show how Evolution has surpassed Planetarion.com in terms of web site traffic, and Planetarion has a Wikipedia article. Also, this isn't an attempt at publicity, but seeing as you mention starting our own wiki, I'll happily supply you with the link to it. Thirdly, while there are no restrictions placed on articles submitted to Digg, what is notable are the 456 users who decided to digg the article. --Neondragon 04:18, 29 September 2006 (BST)
- Delete per nom. Pan Dan 21:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This has been up for a while now. Maybe things should be brought to a conclusion? The Kinslayer 08:58, 4 October 2006 (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.