Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planetarion (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 No consensus. Based on the good word of Hahnchen, and the suggestion of Maramusine that foreign-language sources do imply notability, there seems no reason to overturn the latitude given at the last AfD. It will be quite reasonable to revisit this article in a few months if no further sources arise. Xoloz 03:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planetarion

Still no independent references since it's afd last September. Claim to notability is a listing on http://www.mpogd.com/ based on user reviews; but popularity is not notability. Incredibly it seemed to pass it's last afd on keep arguments such as "I used to play this game a couple of years ago so in my world it is notable." Two further references were pointed out: ciao.co.uk (based on more user ratings) and uk gamer (not sure on it's reliability). I propose deletion on basis of WP:WEB Marasmusine 20:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 20:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just reduced the Ciao score by a half star, so it's defintily an unreliable source. I'm not sure about the other source. It seems to be reliable, although I can't really get much background info on the site. I'm gonna wait and see if more sources appear before I make my mind up. DarkSaber2k 22:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I can guarantee a whole page review of this game was printed in PC Zone, however, I will not have access to that issue until mid summer. This game was quite popular before the dotcom crash killed its advertising revenues, Googling it came up with only a few sources however, and not too many reliable ones. MPOGD does have quite a few Google news archive search hits, and there are some non english mentions such as [1] and [2]. - hahnchen 22:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well those foreign language references actually look okay. A rough translation in order to get their context would be in order. In terms of the PC Zone review, perhaps we can strip the article down to a stub (by removing all those statistics in the Races section, for example) until you can retrieve it? Marasmusine 10:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep with a view to re-listing for deletion if no solidly reliable sources turn up. - Following the extra sources turning up and assuming the PC Zone article pans out (I do actually vaguely remember the PC Zone article too, now someones mentioned it.) But I will state now I don't really want to see the article scrape through, and then remain in a poor state once again. These AfDs and other deletion nominations happen for a reason, and that's something most people who say 'Keep and clean-up' overlook every damn time. DarkSaber2k 10:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to update it is currently in the running for game of the month on http://www.mpogd.com/ Cupelix 12:15, 14 May 2007

Planetarion is always in the running there when I visit, but please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Massively multiplayer online games#Sources resources for current reasoning on why this is an unreliable source of notability. In a nutshell, these browser games can (and do) organise their fans on their forums to spam such 'award' polls. DarkSaber2k 11:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there were any independent third-party sources in English at all, it might be worth checking to see if this game meets the notability requirements of WP:WEB. I looked at the German and Dutch references mentioned above, but I couldn't tell if those were real magazines offering independent opinion. The ciao.co.uk website looked like a shopping site that gave the opportunity for users to submit reviews; thus the reviews carry no more weight than reader reviews on Amazon. EdJohnston 03:07, 17 May 2007 (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.