Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space - Glory Through Conquest (Second 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: with, as eloquently pointed out by 152 and Garrett, no indication that MPOGD is notable (in fact, an article on the site has been deleted) and no arguments to the contrary, which means MPOGD cannot be said to confer notability through its awards, we have no non-trivial coverage by independent third-party sources or any other indication that this game is notable. Delete, not discounting arguments from anons, since a convincing case for deletion was made that has not been answered. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space - Glory Through Conquest[edit]

Completing nomination by 152.91.9.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), no !vote from me yet. MER-C 02:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also: first nomination

Does not appear to meet the web content guideline nor the proposed software guideline. Google news gets zero hits and the first ten pages of a "normal" Google search fail to show anything like a reliable source that has covered this topic. Searching for the less-specific "Glory Through Conquest" in Google and Goggle news also yield no substantial results. Previous nomination debate actually looked like a clear "delete," so I'd encourage everyone to review that debate as well. The only real point of contention is the "multiplayer online directory" awards for "game of the month". These are not a "a well known and independent award" by any metric that has been proposed. Unless citations are provided that demonstrate notability and provide verification this should be deleted. 152.91.9.144 01:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 03:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did a quick google search not sure is this should be delete because google hits brings up 1190 hits, and has several guides published. Simpleerob 05:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is that really notable though for a game that has won 2 award from the same site in 4 years? I've heard of the game, but then it's the kind of thing I like to play. Robovski 05:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. No sources outside its fanbase. The MPOGD awards are interesting, but that is rather generic and appears to be based on either IP-specific votes or ins/outs; neither of these methods are reliable or trustworthy. Within four(?) years this article has not attracted any reliable sources, so I doubt it ever will. Garrett^Talk 09:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its bona fides. Its tidied up though, with more detail added. scope_creep 15:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per anonymous nominator's rationale. Sandstein 19:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable within its genre, and has to awards to show for it thus meeting WP:SOFTWARE. RFerreira 05:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Czj 09:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I recommend cutting some of the game guide stuff down a bit (mainly the "Species" section). --- RockMFR 20:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be quite suprised if we ended up keeping an otherwise un-notable game thanks to an unknown award from a non-notable site. Internet awards need to have some provenance if they are to carry any weight. Looking at "mpogd.com" itself to attempt to determine its notability, I'd point out that:
1. It doesn't have a Wikipedia entry
2. It's only Google news entries are from itself.
3. While the website gets quite a few Google hits, none I could find were from an independant third party.
4. Its Alexa ranks is 46,752 which is far enough into the unreliable zone to be meaningless.
If this game can demonstrate that it's won an award from a notable website, or that it has had non-trivial coverage somewhere else, then this article should be kept. Barring that, it's tantamount to advertising.

152.91.9.144 23:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have reopened this debate due to the fact the keep result was controversial and this debate was closed prematurely without a good consensus, and I would like to leave it to a person who is more experianced with the notability guidelines for schools. --Y.Ichiro (会話) 00:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This isn't a school. --Czj 00:23, 22 November 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.