Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mana World

Add links
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. Most "keep" opinions do not address the principal issue, i.e., WP:WEB (a community-accepted guideline) requiring substantial coverage in reliable independent sources, or the winning of an important award. Numerous weblinks have been posted in the later stages of the AfD, but none of them appear prima facie to fulfill these criteria.  Sandstein  22:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Mana World[edit]

The Mana World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested prod. Article describes an open-source MMORPG. However, the game does not appear to pass notability standards. The game was nominated for an award, but does not appear to have significant third party coverage beyond that. A Google search does not give any significant hits either, beyond the same advert blurb repeated on a number of different sites. TN‑X-Man 19:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the deletion of The Mana World article[edit]

  • This article was market for deletion in first 10 minutes after being created, being in the stub state. Unless Tnxman307 is an expert in any software field, s/he shouldn't mark it for deletion while the the article is at its creation stage.
  • The project has won much attention on one of biggest OSS colaboration sites (sourceforget.net) and is one of finalists of Community Choice Awards 2008 in prominent "Best Project for Gamers" category.

http://sourceforge.net/community/cca08-finalists

  • The project is included in mainstream Linux distributions such as Ubuntu, Debian Arch Linux and Fedora.
  • It is also one of very few MMORPG for UNIX-like operating systems.
  • It high ratings at gaming and software distributions pages such as Linux Game Tome, Softopedia, Freshmeat, Linuxappfinder
  • Why similar pages such as Eternal Lands are included in the Wikipedia?
  • It is ranked 50 at top 100 MMORPG ranking http://www.mmorpg100.com/index.php?cat=2d%20mmorpg
  • Exact phrase "The Mana World" typed in Google returns 55000 results - where most of them are about this project.
  • What do TMW stands for? http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/TMW
  • The game is described and recomended on:

- XFCE official website: http://wiki.xfce.org/games
- Gentoo Wiki http://gentoo-wiki.com/Software/Games
- Open SuSE site: http://tr.opensuse.org/Games
- Ubuntu Guide: http://ubuntuguide.org/wiki/Alternatives
- Fedora official website: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Games
and many other software sites over the Internet.

Therefore it is definately a notable software project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Platyna (talk • contribs) 20:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note Platyna has been mostly involved with the article. There are a lot of assertions of notability (MMORPG100, Xfce). The Sourceforge ones should be mostly ignored. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 21:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article says it all. 60 players online at any given time!?!? Kill it. Come back when it has a real fan base. Ray Yang (talk) 00:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Said comment are textbook examples of WP:IDONTKNOWIT and WP:NOTBIGENOUGH. MuZemike (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, that's an essay, not a guideline or policy. And, while it's undoubtedly true that in certain regimes numbers are not the sole determinant of quality, in other regimes they can fairly be said to be controlling. I offer three examples the numbers 0, 3000, and 6 billion. If the game is known to 0 people, it is not notable. If it is known to 6 billion people, even if it's the stupidest game ever devised in the rain on a Sunday afternoon, it is notable, if only because 6 billion people all know of it. If it's 3000 ... then that may depend and we go looking for quality sources. In the universe of MMORPGs, I regard 60 as being one hell of a lot closer to 0 than any intermediate regime. RayAYang (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interpreting what I referenced as guidelines or policies, but as noted common flaws in deletion discussions. MuZemike (talk) 07:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps it should be called the latter, then, if we get a lot of articles that aren't given the chance to prove themselves. --Kizor 04:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do, but WP:CSD#A7 takes care of the bulk of them. Compared to quietly deleting it when the article creator isn't looking, I find it to be the lesser evil. Nifboy (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But even the New Pages Patrol states that users should be hesitant to list articles on Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion if there's a chance they could be improved and made into a meaningful article. Tag them for cleanup instead. Try not to step on people's toes. Many times, users will start an article as the briefest of stubs, and then expand it over the succeeding hours or days. If anything else, under this patrol, this should have put up as a candidate for speedy deletion. MuZemike (talk) 07:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First, let's please stop derailing this AfD discussion. The nomination is grounded in policy and made in good faith. Attacking the nom's expediency or software expertise is neither. The amount of time that passes between creation and AfD is irrelevant if no reliable sources exist, and so far we don't have any (at least, not from the list Platyna posted above or in the article). By the deletion criteria, what we actually expect from a new article is not for it to be complete upon posting, but for its author to have written enough of a stub, either already referenced or with ready sources to be referenced, to prevent deletion nominations, like this one, for failing basic criteria. Sources that establish notability don't seem to exist for this article, and that is the actual policy question raised by the nom. AfD also lasts five days, during which sources can be found. The article is, therefore, given ample opportunity to prove notability, if the authors neglected to do so prior to creating the page. I am willing to change my vote if reliable sources are found. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This game is recommended by many major Linux distribution projects on their MAIN PAGES (links are posted here), how come it is not enought to consider this project as significiant? And we have real fan base, it takes about 10 minutes to search Google at exact phrase "The Mana World" to find like 50 or more fan websites, listings etc. I may post them but it would be alot of links. Also I am unable to comprehend how the SF Community Choice Awards should be ignored if it is one of more important events in OSS software development. There are many pages such as Eternal Lands that doesn't have as much evidence of their importance as this project's page. Also, since where the Wikipedia is voting for deletion of stubs that are just being built after 10 minutes after their creation? Where is the free speech there? And a propos WP:GOOGLE hits: http://www.google.pl/search?hl=pl&q=The+Mana+World&btnG=Szukaj&lr= 350000 without exact phrase (Since this project is called The Mana World, TheManaWorld, TMW, Mana World etc.) 55000 with exact phrase "The Mana World" 15000 with exact phrase "TheManaWorld" 67000 with exact phrase "Mana World"

Also it is mentioned in most of free MMORPG for Linux topics in many software and gamers forums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Platyna (talk • contribs) 08:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is also worth to note vast majority of these results is about this project.

Platyna (talk) 08:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep The reason there are no reliable sources is because the article was nominated for deletion less than an hour after it's creation. It has potential to become an article with decent sources. MuZemike was right on the money there, "Don't demolish the house while it's still being built". I could understand if this was nominated even a day after creation (although I still wouldn't agree with that as articles take days before they even become an acceptable stub), but less than an hour is just ridiculous. --.:Alex:. 08:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't matter how long it takes to write the article, it has to establish notability. Delete. Andre (talk) 08:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no WP:DEADLINE on establishing notability and significance. My point is not about how long it takes to create an article, my point is that it's been only an hour since creation before being nominated for deletion. Yes, creating an article without first establishing such notability is not necessarily a good idea, but it is not a rule, and this seems very much a case of biting the newcomers. Newcomers aren't familiar with Wikipedia policies and judging by the users talk page, this user was informed about WP:RS and WP:N just 4 minutes before the article was nominated. This all seems extreme. I feel the article has potential, but this seems a case of someone planting a seed, and someone else digging it up in the afternoon. --.:Alex:. 09:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have seven days to improve it. That's more than the 1 day requested before bringing to AfD. If you've made it better after, say, 4 days (or even 7), leave a big bold note here saying that the votes above it refer to a different state of the article. Easy. —Giggy 09:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not very new user, however I am contributing to the Wikipedia when I feel fit. I have always avoided wars, but now I indeed feel there is an unjustice, since many articles about games are kept with even lesser proof of being significant. I am speaking on behalf this article especially as a Linux user, since there are not many games for Linux, especially fully open source, and the free open source MMMORPGs for Linux can be counted on one hand fingers. Wikipedia, as the Open Source project itself should underestand the need to provide information about well established Open Source software that gained much audience all over the Internet. I am very sad, that instead of improving the article I have to waste the time to discuss the sake of its existence, right after the article was created. I have posted enought evidence to prove the need to keep this article on the Wikipedia. Also while creating this article I was fully aware its quality is NOT YET at the level that would satisfy Wikipedia's requirements and mine, but well, AFAIK it is stub's right, since it is STUB not the ARTICLE. Platyna (talk) 10:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable game. The article seems like an excuse to list a collection of external links. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - My biggest concern when nominating this article was the lack of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Almost all of the Google results are for the same advertising blurb ("…a serious effort to create an innovative free and open source MMORPG…"). In my opinion, there was not enough coverage to meet WP:N. TN‑X-Man 11:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This project has been around since 2004 and has only been growing. It is also as far as I am aware unique in its kind. This is not the first time somebody took the time to write up an article about it on Wikipedia (see User talk:Dr Wahl, earlier this year). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjørn (talk • contribs) 14:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Disclosure: Bjørn's one of the developers, according to his user page. Also, the only edits he's made since March 2007 have been to this AfD and the article itself. Fin©™ 16:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You are correct in stating that this article has been created once. However, the article was speedily deleted in January for failing to assert significance. TN‑X-Man 16:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Disclosure: EJlol's only contributions (2) have been to the article and this AfD. Fin©™ 16:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can you explain the following to me: let's say I made 1.000.000 edits before I voted here, do you really think that would change my opinion? I do not think so. This project is unique in it's kind and deserves a wiki entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EJlol (talk • contribs) 17:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, this isn't a vote. Secondly, you should read this essay on single-purpose accounts. Thanks! Fin©™ 20:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Most of software sites copies introduction from the main page, it only speaks on the article behalf that so many sites wants to copy the game website and announce releases of the game client.

Comment/Disclosure: PS. Thank for the edit counters Falcon9x5, but I have made like thousand of editions to Polish and English Wikipedia as the IP, since it is dynamic and I am lazy to log in, and there are many other persons who logs in just to create new articles or participate in discussions, and they usualy don't have 31337 fancy edit counters on their user pages because their only concern is to contribute to the online community knowledge base not to pump their edit count. Not telling most of non-English users prefers to contribute to their local Wikipedia's (I am the author of Biology article on PL Wikipedia along with ALOT other Biology portal articles). Not to mention that I heard every vote counts the same in the Wikipedia votings. Platyna (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions are not granted or denied by counting votes; they are granted or denied based on the merits of the arguments given. If there is no consensus, then the article is not deleted. MuZemike (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability has not been demonstrated with reliable sources unrelated to the project which cover the game in detail. None are coming up in a search. Waiting for a house to be built with materials not fit for purpose doesn't help anyone, the wrecking ball would still be used at some point and the building time between then and now would be wasted. Very open to switching to keep should some genuinely solid sources turn up, but the nature of the game itself, the sources presented here and the ones coming up in a search makes it extremely unlikely. Someoneanother 17:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You can use the ubuntu popularity contest to compare the number of people who have installed the program on ubuntu linux machines http://popcon.ubuntu.com/. These numbers do not include people who play the game on windows or other linux distributions, the who compile their own client, nor the ubuntu linux users who have disabled the popularity contest, but I think they do allow you to compare one game from the List_of_open_source_games against others. Several games on the list appear to have less users than The Mana World. (DISCLAIMER: I sometimes play The Mana World) nielsle 14 July 2008. —Preceding comment was added at 17:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, please actually read the two links posted by Someoneanother. It doesn't matter whether the game has millions of users or six or none at all. The existence of articles on Wikipedia is determined by the policies and guidelines explained in these two links, it's not just "notability" as in the common word "notability" found in dictionaries. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless reliable sources are found by the conclusion of this AFD. The expectation of deletion criteria is not that articles will be completed on creation, but that they must be in at least a vaguely ok condition so as to fulfil the most basic criteria for inclusion. These include assertions of notability that may be backed up with reliable sources if contested. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia articles are expected to contain only information which may be justified, therefore any one of us may reasonably question any facet of information that is not explicitly justified with a reference to a reliable source. Articles which fail to do this may be deleted. If sources exist, then they may be added and the great majority of the delete comments (note I say comment not vote), if not all of them, will become keeps - including mine. As a number of contributors to this AFD are intimately associated with the project, they are surely well placed to identify third party references to the article subject, such as references in the mainstream gaming press. I would also like to point out that the reason for the objection on grounds of involvement with the project is that Wikipedia has a very clear guideline on conflicts of interest that affected editors may wish to read up on. See, when you have an imtimate association with an article then your objectivity in relation to that article's fulfilment of Wikipedia policy and guidelines may be compromised. A third party view and critque of an article's notability does not necessarily violate WP:IDONTKNOWIT and indeed is essential for objectivity. I have never heard of the article's subject, and I am questioning it's notability - I put it to those who know about it to prove to me that it has notability because I just don't see it. Please take advantage of this opportunity. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Let's just run through this, the poeople here who haven't heard of this are the people that spend their time patrolling wikipedia for edits, correct? So the only way you can gauge the "notability" (I use that loosely, see a comment near the end) is by using search engines. Thus the people that have heard of the game spend their time doing other activites and may have intertests in the fields in which the game is in (RPGs, Open source software etc), which would mean they have far more experience with regards to the "notability" of it. '...it's not just "notability" as in the common word "notability" found in dictionaries.' Awesome so people on wikipedia make their own meanings of words up, how nice. I would be stating Keep rather than Comment but since I am now a developer of this project (I was a loyal player for over a year before this, this also being the first and only RPG I have and do play.) you would obvious discredit my views, since this is not a democracy or any thing near it in fact. Regards Quiche on a leash (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC) — Quiche on a leash (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete The guidelines state: “The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"”. I fail to understand how software which, according to the developers’ own admission, is ‘pre-alpha’ can be described as ‘worthy of notice’.(User:Sher-righan 20:40 JUL 14 2008 (UTC)) — Sher-righan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
It's worthy of notice because, its unique in it's kind AND its a SourceForge Community Choice Awards 2008 in prominent "Best Project for Gamers" category finalist. not to mention that the project is included in mainstream Linux distributions such as Ubuntu, Debian Arch Linux and Fedora. That the project is still in "pre-alpha" has nothing to do with it. "pre-alpha" means that it doesn't look right now as the end product, it says nothing about worthy of notice or not. EJlol (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding "Notability" We are using the word Notability as defined by Wikipedia:Notability - and that is FINAL. End of discussion, if you disagree with that policy then this AFD is not the place to discuss that. Quiche on a Leash by the way I resent the accusation that I have no life because I happened to watch the AFD page, and I don't think I'm alone in that. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Caissa, which policy are you referring to? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Er, Wikipedia: Notability as I linked to? I know it's only a guideline but the people who signed up purely for this AFD seem to be confused as to the definition of notability that is being applied here. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Megata. Let's not forget Wikipedia's 5th pillar: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Aside from official policy, nothing is final.

MuZemike (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • WP:IAR only applies when you can actually justify your stance - I posit that the subject of this article is not notable, I'm asking to be proven wrong. I don't believe there is good cause to ignore the notability guideline in this instance, and nobody saying keep here has demonstrated that there is. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just to clarify, I did post Delete above and I agree with Caissa. However, the debate is kind of heated so I think there's no need to exaggerate or magnify one's view by claiming that a guideline is a policy (for instance). Megata Sanshiro (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no notability asserted through coverage by reliable sources independent of the topic. An AfD of a recently created article is a pretty bad decision, but this game is clearly not notable. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commentt. I would like to raise a few points concerning this AfD:
    • Some discussion above draws on numbers of people who know about or use the subject; but it doesn't matter if people "know" about something. Just because we all know something exists doesn't make it notable, what makes it notable is if it receives adequate verifiable sources that assert that notability. Where that cannot be easily found, we can turn to numbers as a rough yard-stick for whether or not verifable sources asserting notability 'could' be found. Note that rough yard-stick really is just that.
    • I entirely disagree with the concept that Wikipedia:Notability is final. This is a wikipedia, it is NEVER final by definition and that applies as much to policy and guidelines as it does to the very articles they try to protect. If such rules or policy prevent us from an improving an article we are to ignore those rules and policies and possibly seek their change.
    • The subject of the article was a finalist in a specialist community awards programme, that could be said to be one of the highest forms of recognition for an open-source project. Why someone would suggest that we should ignore sourceforge links does not make sense at all too me. We are applying commercial gaming standards to an open-source project, which does not help us make a quality, comprehenive record of video gaming in an encyclopedic format.

Icemotoboy (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • I believe that Point 2 there misinterprets what I meant when I said that the notability guideline is final. I was responding to the various alternative definitions of notability that are being thrown about in this AFD, with references being made to dictionary definitions, Wikipedia making up its own terms, etc. All I was trying to say is that the definition of Notability that is the subject of this AFD, and that which some believe this article fails, is that described in Wikipedia:Notability and not anywhere else like a dictionary. I hope that clarifies the matter. Thanks. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You said it is the WP:Notability is final, exactly your words, so stop retreating now when you were proven to be authoritative person lacking the Wikipedia's mode-of-operation knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MuZemike (talk • contribs) 17:51, July 15, 2008


Since the discussion is lenghty I would like to write below some resume:
Fact 1: TMW project is very unique, there is just one (known to me) OSS MMORPG - Daimonin.
Comment: Two projects like that among thousands of other OSS projects is definately notable fact making this project also notable (I have excluded all OSS game engines since they are, as the name says, engines not games).
Fact 2: TMW project gained prominent result in one of most important OSS contests - it is a finalist in the Community Choice Awards by SF.
Comment: As a person very concerned about OSS phenomena, I am appalled, when I am told to ignore this prominent and notable fact, surely such people (who are telling me that) have no idea about OSS at all, therefore they shouldn't even take part in this discussion, since they are unable to judge notability of this project.
Fact 3: Among hundreds of packages that are in the directory games of mainsteam Linux distributions repositories, this game is recomended on the official websites in their prominent and one of most visited category "games", links are posted above.
Comment: This fact does not require one.
Fact 4: The article is about project that complies with policy described in WP:GOOGLEHITS.
Comment: This fact does not require one.

Note 1: A short one to people yelling about "deranging" this page: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/debate Wiktionary happens to be also useful and notable project, worth to be checked once a while.
Note 2: I joined EN Wikipedia a long time before most of you, barnstar and template people, did. You are screaming out loud and trying to challenge credibility of other persons by attaching to their names edit counters and SPA templates to suggest they are sockpuppets, made by who? By me? It is indeed very low. Platyna (talk) 08:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Platyna that is complete rubbish - my exact words were, if you'll look, "We are using the word notability as defined by Wikipedia:Notability, and that is final. Why do you assume that the second clause is what I'm referring to as final? It might be slightly badly phrased, but I've certainly clarified that what I mean by final is the definition of notability. I'm not saying the guideline is final, and feel free to question it (not here though) but no other definition of notability other than that used in the guideline will be used in this AFD. That much is final. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - let us know if it actually wins an award and I might be convinced it passes WP:N, particularly if combined with pointers to substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources. Also, I see that both WP:Notability and WP:GOOGLEHITS have been described in the above as "policies", which is incorrect. The former is a guideline and the latter is an essay. Marasmusine (talk) 11:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even worse, GOOGLEHITS is a description of what not to do. Pagrashtak 14:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Worse than that, in the same edit in which I'm erroneously accused of considering the notability guideline final, WP:GOOGLEHITS - an essay, no less (or is "no more" a more appropriate comment in this instance? :p ) - is referred to as policy. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ‘If someone brought this page to your attention’—I would like to note that User:Platyna has been actively bringing this page to the attention of developers on irc channel [#tmwdev]. I am also interested that no-one has bothered to note this fact above (User:Sher-righan 16:45 Jul 15 2008 (UTC))— Sher-righan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete: Normally I'd advise against nominating something this quickly. But because this is an open source game that has only been out for a few months, it's not surprising that there is no coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Completely non-notable, as it does not meet the general notability guideline. Randomran (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this project is almost 5 year's old. See also this [1] EJlol (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's that old and there's nothing in the press about it that makes me even more convinced it isn't notable. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Keep in mind that this is an open–source project. There is the potential to run into problems if we judge this article with the same weight/tenacity as commercial, closed-source projects. With that said, I'm not opposing the deletion of the article per se, (We obviously should not give open–source projects special treatment, which is what I'm trying not to imply.) but rather the circumstances in which it was so quickly nominated. MuZemike (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I am sorry to say that, but I must admitt, that over all these years Wikipedia has gone crazy. Ruin my work as you see fit. I don't have a time for flames, however I will not contribute to the Wikipedia anymore since it has lost its point.

Platyna (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I hope you won't let this one incident drive you away. The problem isn't that Wikipedia has lost its way—it's just that a lot of people have misunderstandings of what Wikipedia is. I found myself surprised quite a number of times my first few months here. If you decide to stick around, you'll find that we usually have a good reason behind our rules, although it may not always be apparent at first glance. We're not trying to be rude, and we don't want to ruin anyone's work, we're just upholding the policies and guidelines that we have arrived at by consensus. Try contributing to established articles in a related field. Perhaps you could help ensure that other MMO projects are presented with a neutral point of view, or NPOV. Pagrashtak 21:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Nah, let him go. If the user insists on taking everything personally, then maybe the user doesn't belong here. I'd like to say that we do have a better understanding of how to run things than we did a couple of years ago when there was nothing but disorganization and chaos.
This is what happens when an article gets nominated for AfD so hastily as at has been. MuZemike (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a article about the mana world written in this magazine: [2] because we do not know which issue and/or page number, we are now trying to contact the director of the magazine. EJlol (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability, popularity, number of users, standards of opensource vs. commercial products, all of these are secondary. The article NEEDS references to reliable, third party coverage. I don't see any. I can't find any. Without it, all of the other discussions are pointless. Per WP:V, which is a policy, there should not be an article on a subject without reliable, third party sources. Now, if sources are found, the conversation about notability still needs to be had, but without them, it's a pretty clear cut case. gnfnrf (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely agree. The issue here is sources. I do however believe the number of sources we require for this project (as open source) should be lower than that for a commerical project, in part because commercial projects receive more exposure because of their requirement to promote themselves in order to survive. Above there was an indication that a magazine article was available, I haven't voted yet and I'm going to wait and see whether this magazine reference pans out. If it does, that combined with the nomination in the sourceforge awards would make me feel this is keep. Icemotoboy (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Gnfnrf. If reliable sources were provided or the game wins the award for which it is nominated, I would have no problem withdrawing the nomination. I think WP:V is the overriding concern here. TN‑X-Man 01:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONGKeep Let's say I invented the "Hammerschmidt Bolt", which - unknown to you - exists as part of the suspension of 87% of cars in the world. Is it still notable? By it's sheer coverage and distribution you would have to say yes, and you would ask yourself "how come I never knew this before???" This Alpha version of a game, heralded as a great project for Linux geeks to help program (yes, I used the term "Linux Geek") has a similar distribution, but you just don't know about it - yet. Heck, there's a couple of Windows Vista games that most people have no clue about, but they're all over the world! Maybe you want to rename it "The Mana World Project" or something, feel free ... just improve the article as possible BMW(drive) 17:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree to your statements, however the discussion (in particular gnfnrf's comments) has drifted (back... finally) to the key issue: Verified sources of notability. There is a solid claim of notability, that on the face of it may be verifable. A magazine article has been identified but not yet provided. If this claim of notability can be established, then I think the consensus would be in the direction of keep. Should no sources providing notability can be found, one begins to question if they indeed exist in numbers required to hold this article. Icemotoboy (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong/Speedy Keep, clearly it appears it is establishing that it is notable. Plus a general protest vote agains the poor manner in which this poor article was sent off to AfD. Mathmo Talk 05:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Info for people such as TN-X-Man, who has litte underestanding of Linux and OSS community: Dag Wieers Is a creator of one of biggest and most important software repositories for Red Hat-like distributions, included in almost all RH-like distributions, which is maintained by group of professionals such as Verachtert.) Therefore I think despite the desperate attempts of TN-X-Man to degrade the my voice and those who were speaking on behalf my work, the truth is by my side.Platyna (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Platyna (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - First of all, I would like to mention that I have no personal grudge against this game or open source projects in general. However, I would be happy to discuss with you the links you have provided. It appears that the content on those two pages are the same paragraph that is provided at several of the other links in the article. Are there any third party reviews of the game? Those would be good additions to the article. As I mentioned earlier, I would have no problem withdrawing this AfD nomination if reliable sources are provided. I see someone mentioned a magazine article, which would be a great source. I hope we can work through this peacefully and best of luck. TN‑X-Man 14:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is third party review, and these pages are sort of mirrors, one is his private page and one is repository page he made.Platyna (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that I did mistake, since Dries has copied the decription out of Freshmeat page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Platyna (talk • contribs) 18:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As QOAL (aka Quich_on_a_Leash) is a member of the development team of The Mana World, that last reference is irrelevant. Sher-righan (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well he wasn't a member of the development team when he wrote that application. Of course all of these applications are written by fans who'd like to contribute something, and the line between contributors and the "development team" is usually rather vague in open source software. But it's good to know that we should be careful who to call a member of the development team, for their contributions may suddenly be seen as irrelevant. --Bjørn (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has that article been sourced? The magazine one described above? I think what Tnxman307 is saying, is that we'd all like to see tjhe claim of notability established to the standards we have here at wikipedia. Theres quite a few sources like the one you posted above, but I think what would settle the issue would be at least one reference in a notable source (such as the magazine, or something like that, or winning that award). Icemotoboy (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what I am saying is that the guideliness are flawed, shady, and majority of their content cannot apply to OSS. And since they are preventing me to improve Wikipedia I am hereby ignoring them.Platyna (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know what you mean by the guidelines being "shady", but Wikipedia:Notability applies to open-source projects as much as any other field. Without the sources required for notability, we have no hope of writing a verifiable article with a neutral point of view. Primary sources alone are not sufficient. Pagrashtak 18:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article complies with NPOV, where it does not? And maybe you would read the article and mark/edit fragments that you think are not NPOV. And about the regulations, user signed as BMW drive explained it nicely here, there is no need for me to repeat it. I am here more than three years and it is first such kind of discussion I am (while being disgusted) involved, but I feel I have to defend here something more than just one article about a game. Platyna (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • For this article to be complete, it will need a critical reception section. It is impossible to write such a section without independent reliable sources. If the article is based purely on primary sources, it will reflect that point of view. Pagrashtak 19:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added two external references about the game to TN-X's discussion page that are reviews of the game. It exists on hundreds of thousands of computers around the world, and is notable. Editors REALLY need to remember that they should never be the same person to both PROD and AfD the same article. BMW(drive) 18:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can someone separate that section into "Further reading" and "References" so we know what is what? Inline citations would be immensly useful as well. Pagrashtak 19:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rule that says the same editor cannot both PROD and AFD the same article. I am in the process of researching the article now; I will give my opinion in a few minutes, but I think the record needs to be set straight here first. J.delanoygabsadds 20:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no "rule" about being PROD and AfD ... it's called "common sense". It gives someone the impression that you really DO have a hate on for either the article itself OR the author. You always let someone else do the AfD because it's like the Canadian Senate as opposed to the House of Commons .. it's the "house of sober second thought". It's highly possible that you were in too much of a hurry when you did the PROD and weren't objective (as is obvious in this case). If you then turn around and do the AfD when the PROD fails, it makes you, the editor look like a vindictive knob ... you didn't get what you want, so you're going a new direction. Think from the POV of the original editor in this case. Plus, remember one key rule of Wikipedia: if necessary break the rules. If you're a Microsoft weenie, you have no clue about Linux, OSS, or anything. In that case, you really need to stay away from topics you can never understand. Like I said earlier ... this game is on hundreds of thousands of computers across the world - it's therefore notable whether you can find a flipping article or not...the fact that the original text appears on so many sites is more than enough proof. Name for me all of the Microsoft games currently installed with Microsoft Vista Home Premium .. quick, don't look ... just tell me!! Being an editor on Wikipedia isn't rocket science folks BMW(drive) 23:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hold up, you used the word "never" when you originally said that - backtracking are we? I recently Prodded an article which then had the tag removed by an IP vandal. Procedure says that in any circumstances whatsoever that a Prod tag is removed it should not be replaced, so I sent the article to AFD where it was duly deleted (the article was Wesley Gibson for the record by the way). Now according to you, I was wrong to do that. But just as you suggested, I applied WP:COMMON and was the submitter of both. How do you rationalise that? And you don't need to use CAPS for emphasis, it's far more polite and less shouty to use italics like everyone else does. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BMW, I have never viewed anyone who PRODs an article and then AfDs it as "hating the article" nor have I ever thought of said people as "vindictive knobs", nor have I ever seen any evidence that anyone else does so. When I have brought articles to AfD after I PROD them, it is almost always when the creator of the article, or an IP user, removes the PROD tag with no improvements whatsoever to the article. In that situation, if I did not bring the article to AfD, I would be saying that either my original PROD tag was completely wrong, or I would be showing that I do not have to courage to follow up on my original opinions.
In addition, I have several issues with the content of your post above. Your condescending tone ("Being an editor on Wikipedia isn't rocket science folks.") and frequent use of ALL CAPS is very rude. If you have an opinion that differs from mine, cool. But just because you do not agree with an opinion does not mean it is not a valid one. Also, in your entire post, I do not see how any of your examples have a bearing on this discussion. You said, "...the fact that the ORIGINAL TEXT appears on SO MANY SITES is more than enough proof". That statement is flat out wrong. It does not matter how many sites the text is on, it matters which sites the text is on. Nearly 100% of the websites you are talking about are forums, wikis, random collections of information, etc. Also, if the game was being reviewed by a reliable, reputable reviewer, the reviewer would certainly not include the game website's text in their review.
What purpose was served by mentioning WP:IAR? About the only way you could invoke that here would be to do a non-admin closure as Keep. Is that what you are suggesting you or someone else should do? I also do not understand what you are talking about with the Canadian Legislature either. The only thing I can gather that you are saying is that after a member of the House of Commons introduces a bill, he or she should not pursue it in the Senate; they should just completely ignore it and hope that it passes. Besides that, I see no evidence that the game is being played on "hundreds of thousands" of computers around the world. If there were really more than 100,000 people who had the game, don't you think that more than 50 (Which is five one-hundredths of one per cent of 100,000) would be on at the same time? J.delanoygabsadds 04:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

However I still think you should read the whole discussion, since there are important arguments stated there. Platyna (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I meant. When I wrote the above, the article had references and external links combined in one section, so it was not clear what was used as a source for the article and what was not. Please divide in the links in the article appropriately. Pagrashtak 19:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No coverage by reliable third-party sources. I looked everywhere I could think of to try to find information about this game. The info I found that was not first-party sources was in blogs, forums, wikis, and similar places. The list of links Platyna gave above are more of the same. J.delanoygabsadds 20:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is definately not they way to participate in such discussion, what does that mean "you looked everywhere" and why you did not stated why you think eg. Ubuntu or Softopedia website link is unreliable? It is not Wiki, not a blog, not a forum etc. Platyna (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I looked everywhere I could think of" means I spent around 30 or 40 minutes looking at Google search results for various combinations of the game's name to try to find a reliable source that covered it. I looked in vain. Softopedia (from what I could see) is a site that simply tries to collect information about every free software project on the internet. Coverage there does not constitute an assertion of notability. If the Ubuntu link you are referring to is http://popcon.ubuntu.com/, I'm afraid I have no idea what you are trying to say. The webpage does not mention the game at all J.delanoygabsadds 20:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to say that you should read the content of the page, while doing your research, and then look for tmw in the listings since the page is created for sole purpose of checking popularity of particular software packages.

Platyna (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links such as the Softpedia link above are not reliable third party sources because they contain the same text as many of the other links, which is itself the same text as the subject's own website. This shows that the site is not demonstrating editorial independence from the subject of the article (necessary for a source to be considered third party) or a reputation for fact checking (necessary for a source to be reliable). No matter how many different websites post the same description of the game off of the official website, or offer it for download, they are not reliable sources unless they meet the standards in WP:SOURCES (part of WP:V) and WP:RS. Note that this hurdle isn't particularly high. A feature article or a review in a magazine, or on an editorially controlled website, would probably suffice. gnfnrf (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Out of that list above, I did notice the strategy informer information page on the project. That indicates that it is being picked up by some mainstream gaming websites. This makes me think that the likelihood of finding other sources would be possible. In all honesty, I really think that there is no consensus here, and I haven't found the arguments of either option particularly compelling. In situations like this, I err on the side of caution. The article should be cleaned up, and revisited for notability and sources in a few months. I think sources can probably be found, but it is proving difficult. Wikipedia is not simply a collection of "articles that can easily be sourced as notable on the internet", we need to consider the context of the content. This is not a typical gaming project, thus we should not approach verifying its claim of notability in a typical way. Icemotoboy (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ad primo: I have planned to write several articles this month, since I have more time as it is summer time but then first one got PRODed and then flamed so I have suspended all my planned work, in fear of my contributions being ruined in the way of bully child destroying other child's sand castles. Yes, such a quick PROD and then AfD with: people "who looked everywhere and couldn't find reliable sources" deranging the discussion, the edit counters, and then SPA templates near the names who has made significant work for OSS (well done, you have flamed here Qt programmer, a RHEL developer and a person working for CERN) makes it very hard for me to assume good faith in this case. I am also very sorry I have to participate in the discussion of the type I have always avoided during my four years long interest in the Wikipedia.
  • Ad secundo, I have mentioned WP:IAR and it is also flawed regulation, since if it wouldn't I would remove AFD and then go on with the work, but if I would ignore the regulation that I think I should, my work would be deleted long time ago.

Platyna (talk) 08:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Platnya, do not allow this specific incident to stop you. About a month ago I created about 2-dozen stubs in Project Caribbean (all of which have since been expanded by others), and surprisingly got a Barnstar for it. A week later I created a couple of dozen more stubs based on music of Newfoundland and Labrador (all from REDLINKS) and had a few of them PROD'd. All of them have since remained and been expanded upon by others. A BOT actually blanked one of the articles based on WP:COPY which was wrong, and I (as asked) noted that on the bot owners page. An editor failed to notice that, and re-blanked it 2 days later. After a bot-blank and live editor-blank, I was pretty fed up. Sure, I have not created so many stubs lately, but I now follow these simple rules with my stubs: always include at least 2 independent references, and always link it to a project via the discussion page. BMW(drive) 12:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The magazine's online archives' latest edition in May. Does someone have access to this magazine at a news stand or something? J.delanoygabsadds 16:04, 18 July 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Mana_World&oldid=1138847628"