Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Utopia (online 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 redirect Marasmusine (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Utopia (online game)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:WEB and WP:N: non-notable browser game with no references from reliable, third-party, published sources. All of the current sources are primary sources, press releases, unreliable wikis, and fansite-quality material. Nothing I can find meets the WikiProject Video games list of recommended sources. The custom WPVG Google search returns a lot of hits for games with a similar name, but nothing reliable for this one. Wyatt Riot (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[[1]] review for game here, is this acceptable?. Additionally Utopia, along with a sister game won the title "Peoples Voice Winner" under the Gaming section of the Webby ( http://www.webbyawards.com, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webby_Award) awards in 2002 and 2003 (http://www.webbyawards.com/webbys/winners-2003.php, http://www.webbyawards.com/webbys/winners-2002.php) under the old web address of www.swirve.com - this has since been changed to www.utopia-game.com --Runawaybishop (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion about OMGN here. The site is getting better, and they even list their editorial staff now. Back in 2006, however, anyone could apply to be a reviewer, they didn't publish any of their editorial policies, etc. This review, in particular, seems to have quite a few amateurish mistakes, so I don't think we should include it here. We also don't count voting/people's choice awards in most cases because it means little more than "Publisher X can get more of their fans to vote repeatedly than Publisher Y". Even a Webby Award given by the judges is a bit of a sham, since publishers have to buy the nomination to be considered. Wyatt Riot (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the feedback, i'll see if can find anything more reliable --Runawaybishop (talk) 10:32, 4 November 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) 14:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any reviews from there http://www.gamefaqs.com/webonly/916589-utopia/reviews are reliable? Procariot (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the WikiProject Video games guide to sources, we should only trust GameFAQs for release dates. Pretty much anyone can write a review, so it's not a reliable source. Wyatt Riot (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How abot this book? Procariot (talk) 13:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC) http://books.google.com/books?id=kfuWSQAACAAJ&dq=browser+game+llc&hl=en&ei=uxXQTObzCs74sgbTivXyAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAg Title Browser-Based Multiplayer Online Games: Multiplayer Browser-Based Games in 3D Gameworld, Runescape, Kingdom of Loathing, Hattrick[reply]

Author Books, LLC

Publisher General Books, 2010 ISBN 1155981812, 9781155981819 Length 478 pages —Preceding unsigned comment added by Procariot (talk • contribs) 13:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Books, LLC is a company that takes free (and not-so-free) content from Wikipedia and other places and publishes it on demand when the book is purchased. So no, it's not reliable in any way. Wyatt Riot (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'll try to find another sources. Procariot (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about this http://archive.omgn.com/reviews.php?Item_ID=49 article? Procariot (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply above. It's an amateur article. Wyatt Riot (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable, published sources. No bias against recreation should usable sources pop up, however. --Teancum (talk) 13:56, 5 November 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) 12:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given the amount of effort made to find a sources it seems there arnt any.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found reviews at more reliable resources than OMGN and GameFAQs yet. Procariot (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shuold you find any RS establishing notability then of course my vote would change to Keep.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most Wiki's reliable resources aren't interesting of text-browser games at all.

Notability... What do you mean? May be this: http://charts.thedragonportal.eu/History.html The column WoL plus BF - this is number of users. In 2003 at this text-based game played simultaneous more than hundred thousands people. The game is playable around 12 years. Procariot (talk) 15:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if RS don't care about the game you will not find RS establishing notability (I.E. third party RAS have shown some interest in it as an item). Something can only have an articel on wiki if its been demonstrated that it has reviced significant coverage in third party RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Utopia, along with a sister game (Earth 2025, which is closed now) won the title "Peoples Voice Winner" under the Gaming section of the Webby (games.swirve.com at [2], [3]) awards in 2002 and 2003. Procariot (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also covered above. We value sources written by journalists, not popular votes. Wyatt Riot (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jolt Online Gaming#Utopia. Per WP:NOT, we don't need all the gaming details. However, I do find the history of the game itself interesting. One tidbit though that jumped out as a glaring... error... in the article - Utopia claims to be one of the oldest oneline games, yet was released in 1998. I guess they never heard of MUD, which came out 20 years earlier. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect That seems fair.Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, sure, MUD is older. Second, it is written on the official site "Utopia is one of the oldest running online games". Third, it is written "Utopia is one of the oldest running online games". So, it is no errors here. Procariot (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is better than deletion Procariot (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way - Bot found 2 articles about Utopia dated from 2007 on Swedish and Dutch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Procariot (talk • contribs) 20:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted some information from fan pages Procariot (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About notability: [4] from GameZone News: "Jolt Online Gaming proudly announces the release of Utopia Kingdoms, the successor to the legendary Utopia online game." Procariot (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that's a repost of a press release, which cannot be used. --Teancum (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jolt Online Gaming#Utopia --Teancum (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, or delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:56, 9 November 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.