Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nexus War

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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 08:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nexus War

[edit]

Online game launched in May this year. No evidence of number of players, innovation, significance, external coverage, etc. No sign of meeting WP:SOFTWARE. Just zis Guy you know? 12:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Porqin 12:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:SOFTWARE and WP:WEB --Peephole 17:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Highway Return to Oz... 17:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The game is a browser based game and should not have to adhere to WP:SOFTWARE
  • Delete per nom. Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 17:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - People are far too eager to sling around "non-notable", when you've got articles on quite a large number of more "non-notable" topics. Nexus War is extremely innovative for a browser-based game and has gained a large number of players in a very short period of time, and will only continue to do so. --Keolah 18:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Nexus War has gathered a lot of players already, and the community is still growing swiftly. The game is very entertaining, and are actually better than some browser games that I know of. There's little doubt that it would be swarmed by browser-based MMOG fans. --Kamalia Timandre 19:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How about you do some research instead of just saying Delete as norm for everything. Its a very active community with about 8000 users so far and its only just gone into Beta. --Rogue
    • Comment: If this can be verified, wouldn't this tend to make the article notable? I don't know what a large player base for a beta is, but this sounds like a significant number. If so, certainly criteria according to WP:WEB will follow; should we delete the article until then, or try to stay ahead of the curve and keep developing the article, since it's already been started? B7T 09:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article as it stands is at worst a badly written stub on a worthy topic. I hardly find that reason for deletion. Aren't we here to improve these articles rather than get rid of them? B7T 21:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its a fairley new game and thus dosn't have much wrote on it yet, I've been looking through the other browser based games edit history and most of them started off with even less information than this, if the lack of statistical information bothers you that much, then go find it out and add it to the article. --Meirleach 21:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:Feel free to propose those articles for deletion as well if they haven't asserted notability. But this afd deals with this article not those others. So please provide valid reasons to keep this article. Has it received any significant coverage? Is the game notable? Is the game innovative? Has the developer created any previous notable games? ... --Peephole 21:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: You're missing my point, look at say one of the earlier Urban Dead edits - here Its tiny, not very well written and contains very little information, now look at the current page Urban Dead it contains information on the player base, how many active accounts their are, and several of the interesting game mechanics. My point is that articals don't start off perfect, most of them start off as small poor quality stubs and are expanded upon by interested wikipaedians, they need time to grow. Go back to the earliest version of most articles in browser based games and you will see exactly the same thing. --Meirleach 22:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: Meirleach makes a good point. It's disappointing to me when there is the appearance of being automatically dismissive of an article whose merits may not be immediately apparent. Peephole, your questions are worthy of consideration, but they are subjective: What makes a game notable or innovative? Whose coverage sets the standard for noteworthiness? And a developer's first game could indeed be noteworthy, so precedent needn't be an issue. B7T 22:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: This afd isn't specifically based on the contents of the article but on whether the subject deserves a wikipedia article or not. My questions were indeed very subjective and that is why the subject needs independent, external and reliable coverage, which doesn't seem to exist at the moment. So the article should be deleted. If the subject is truly notable and worthy of an article, then it will eventually be treated by a reliable source and then the article can be recreated. --Peephole 01:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment: Regarding re-creation of the article, see my comment under Rogue's above. And my questions were not rhetorical: What criteria define notability or innovation? Where, specifically, should we be looking for worthy coverage? I generally get my own initial information through the less significant sources like blogs and forums, and look to Wikipedia itself as one of the significant sources. B7T 10:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN, sockpuppet-supported. Fails both WP:SOFTWARE and WP:WEB, whichever you prefer. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment NN= not negotiable? This AFD has only been around for 3 days, according to wiki policy at Wikipedia:Deletion policy this is a public debate that lasts for 5 days, I also dislike the implication that I and several other 'keep' participents are sock puppets, we have all made valid comments and its unfair to just dismiss us on the suspicion of being sock puppets. On another note there is a general consensus that the article does in fact lack information and could be a lot better, if you look here in the deletion policy page Problem articles where deletion may not be needed You will see that articles that lack information or need alot of improvement should be listed on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention not deleted.
      • Comment: NN=Not Notable. Also, as I've said before the discussion is mainly on whether the topic deserves an article at all. --Peephole 17:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment And as I have said before, most of the other articles in browser based games started off in nearly exactly the same condition, why weren't they all deleted? If this browser based game isn't deserving of an article why are the rest of them? Almost all of us have agreed that the article needs work, and if you look at the earliest versions of just about any of the browser based games most of them weren't 'notable' either, but they were given a chance and some time and they grew into 'notable' articles. --Meirleach 17:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: Nobody said anything of those other browser games deserving an article. If you think they do not deserve an article, feel free to put them up for deletion as well. But this discussion should be on this articles merits, not those others. Oh and the problem isn't that this wikipedia article isn't notable but the subject (the game) has no notability and thus doesn't adhere to WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE. --Peephole 17:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment: The games only been in beta for 3 months and already has 8000 players and as for innovation, most browser based MMORPGs seem to either focus on running a big empire(Dark Throne, battlemaster) or running your character around levelling up killing things (Shartak, UrbanDead and Runescape), Nexus War is a very interesting fusion of the two due to the faction system.
It has the more normal RPG elements, like finding weapons, gaining experience and levelling up, buy skills and all the usual RPG fair, but it also contains elements of the more strategic RPGs, you have to keep your weapon stocks up, so your faction members actually have stuff to attack with, you can hold areas by building barricades, make your faction bonuses stronger by infusing squares on the map.
But unlike games like DarkThrone you don't do this by yourself, due to the games design its impossible, so if you want lots of faction bonuses, you have to organise the other players to infuse, if you want to attack someone you can't just click on their name and obliterate them, you have to find willing players in your faction and co-ordinate them, you want tons of guns and ammo, you have to keep players with crafting skills supplied or even forget that bit and make an alliance with another faction where they supply you with weapons in exchange for protection.
Its a browser based game that *encourages* interacting with the other players on a level I have yet to see in any other browser based game, having said that you can play on your own, thereýs nothing stopping you, but its a much less filling experience.
Now that all looks like a lot of gushing POV hyperbole, and of course there are things that annoy me in the game too, but the games faction system is very innovative. On --Meirleach 18:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment:That's great, but is there a reliable source to back that claims up? --Peephole 19:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Comment: And therin lies the problem with browser based games, most accepted by the wiki reliable sources dont review browser based games, its very unlikey that you'll find a review of Nexus War in a newspaper or gaming magazine, WP:SOFTWARE has "The software is/was innovative, significant, or influential in some specific way, and this is verifiable from reliable sources independent of the software developer." You will be hard pushed to find a reliable source for any browser based game, due to their nature they don't fit properly in WP:SOFTWARE or WP:WEB, the two articles I linked above dont meet those two, which by the way are not policies, only guidelines, guidelines which due to the nature of browser based games, don't apply to them very well.
                  • Comment: Those same arguments were used for webcomics and internet memes. Until it was discovered that notable memes or webcmics ones were actually covered by reliable sources. If the webgame really was truly notable, it would have been covered. --Peephole 20:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Comment: So what would be a "reliable source" for browser-based games? I have yet to see the name of a publication, or a link. I'm not sure one exists. B7T 23:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Comment: A newspaper or a gamingmagazine would be most likely to cover this subject and would be a reliable source. --Peephole 17:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Comment: You're being a bit disingenuous. Browser-based games aren't typically covered by mainstream press, nor do I expect them to be. This doesn't make a particular game any less notable -- although perhaps it makes it less likely that you will have heard of it, which I suspect is the real issue here. As far as verifiability goes, I agree that it would be better for there to be abundant coverage by mainstream media sources, but the fact that this is a web-based game puts us in the unique position of being able to actually click on the link and see it with your own eyeballs. Would you argue that items such as the W3c article shouldn't be on Wikipedia? -grummerx 20:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Comment: They're not typically covered, because...they're not typically notable. W3c definatly belongs on wikipedia and guess what, it is extensivly covered by reliable sources. No one is contesting Nexus War doesn't exist but wikipedia just isn't a collection of links. So the sites that have an article should be notable sites. And Nexus War doesn't seem to have an exceptional number of users, it barely has any google hits, alexa barely notes any traffic and there are no reliable external sources covering it, so I don't see how it is notable.--Peephole 21:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Comment: Equating Alexa traffic to notability is a spurious argument. I regularly visit a site that is way further down on Alexa's ranking, and it's garnered notice on a nationally televised newsmagazine, as well as several magazine articles internationally. B7T 13:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Comment: I agree, I just think Alexa can give some indication whether a site is popular and thus can be considered notable. --Peephole 14:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Comment: Please read my comment again and notice that I wasn't addressing the W3c's notability, but rather its verifiability. The extensive coverage you speak of is not what forms the verifiability of the W3c article. The key facts in the article can be gleaned from links to the W3c itself. -grummerx 14:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Sockpuppet? I think you've gotten your definitions mixed up, here. A sockpuppet is one user using multiple accounts to "vote" on something. That is not at all the case here. :P Someone with few edits on this wiki is not, by definition, a sockpuppet. Players of the game coming on to support it does not make them sockpuppets, you know. You may not think their words carry much weight, but that does not make them "sockpuppets". Or do you really think that that game has only one player? :P --Keolah 17:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it doesn't meet WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE and it just came out in May so it doesn't really pass WP:NN either. Whispering 18:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If anything, this article is a candidate to be added to Pages needing attention, not for outright deletion. To those voting "delete", I'd encourage you to read the actual Deletion_policy linked in the template at the top of the page. Note that although items such as WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V are addressed, notability is not. Notability is not a universally accepted criteria on Wikipedia and does not appear anywhere in the official deletion policy.
The deletion in question is being proposed for failing to meet such criteria as WP:SOFTWARE, WP:WEB, and WP:NN. None of these are actual criteria for deletion, but rather suggested guidelines. If we're bandying about proposed guidelines and essays, then I'd like to throw WP:NNOT into the mix. grummerx 22:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The game currently has 15760 players, and unlike UD which spawned NW, people are only allowed one account each on pain of banning. Surely that's enough people caring about and putting time and effort into the game for it to have an article?--Mobius Soul 22:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: That amount of players apparantely isn't large enough to ensure coverage by any major news outlet or other reliable source. So why should wikipedia keep an article on the subject?--Peephole 23:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: The question isn't "why should we keep it", but rather "why should we delete it?" The onus is on you to provide a satisfactory reason for deletion, which as far as I can see you have yet to do. The only criteria for deletion that I have yet to see comes entirely from proposed guidelines, and the assertion of "notability" itself can be seen to be NPOV. While your point of view is that a browser-based game is "not notable", from the point of view of thousands of very active players, it is quite notable. The notability article itself states under the "Arguments against deleting articles for non-notability" section that "'Non-notable' is generally a non-NPOV designation."
      • Comment: From WP:V: "the burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain." My point of view isn't that a browser-based game isn't notable, it is that this particular browser-based game isn't notable. And indeed notability is a point of view, that's why we need reliable, verifable and independent sources and that's also why there are guidelines for notability like WP:WEB and the proposed WP:SOFTWARE. --Peephole 17:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: And that's also why we have guidelines like WP:UCS. Using a little common sense should make it abundantly clear that Nexus War can't really be shoe-horned into WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE. From a notability aspect, common sense would dictate that a browser-based game capable of attracting thousands of very active users in a reasonably short time and which has hundreds of users online playing at any hour of the day or night is indeed quite notable. Remember that the "thousands of users" I refer to isn't the same as a website which receives thousands of visits a day -- these are actual users who come back to the game multiple times per day as opposed to casual viewers who may just glance at a web page before moving along. -grummerx 20:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: You claim that a couple thousand players is a high number and thus notable. Yet, I'm not convinced it is a high number. That is why we need reliable external sources to determine the game's notability.--Peephole 21:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment: I again direct you to use common sense rather than use the "it's not important to me, therefore it's not important" guideline. I note from your recent edits that you seem to have a bit of a vendetta against browser-based games, even going so far as to contest the notability of Urban Dead which by any measure of common sense is quite notable. Or perhaps you'd care to point me to another browser-based game that has had thousands of active players in the last hour alone? -grummerx 03:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment: I slapped a notability on the Urban Dead article in hopes of someone finding sources. But anyways I googled a second time for them myself and hey, I found some. Not the best ones but apparantely browser games do get some coverage. Can you find any sources for Nexus War?--Peephole 14:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My general sense of this AFD is that of "here's a topic which doesn't interest me personally, let's throw as many proposed guidelines at it as possible and see if one sticks." -grummerx 15:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)$[reply]
  • Keep - As a moderator for NexusWar and a player of UrbanDead, I find the claims of sockpuppetry offensive. Keolah is a distinct individual, and also a moderator, as is Meirleach. The current amount of players totals approximately 7500, rather than the 15000 stated by Mobius Soul, but nevertheless, it is still not an insignificant number. Technically, it doesn't meet the WP:WEB requirements. I will freely admit that. Fortunately for Nexus War, WP:WEB is a page that gives some rough guidelines. -Wyndallin 00:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Way too new for being notable. The sockpuppetry in progress reminds me of the horrors of Lentil (slur)'s AFD last week. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I am a (casual) player of said game. Just because it's new, doesn't mean it's non-noteworthy. No sock-puppets here, either. Zarggg 01:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: I've never played the game, but I'd rather be able to look it up on Wikipedia should I so desire than, say, a high school. And each of those NN buggers has its own article. Icewolf34 14:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This may be a "weak" keep, but it's one of the strongest arguments I know of for keeping this article. Bear in mind that Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia and there's no real reason to delete an article that obviously has some genuine interest. Again, the common theme from many of those proposing deletion seems to stem from the fact that this is a game that they've never heard of. I'd argue that this is actually a great reason to keep the article -- I find myself using Wikipedia to look up items about which I know little or nothing far more often than subjects about which I'm well-versed. -grummerx 14:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Too new and not notable. To all for/against this delete - We all agree that in its current state it is nothing but an uninformative stub. If this game is truly notable, it'll eventually be covered or sprout a more extensive piece of writing. No point arguing over a stub. Delete for now and wait to see if the game swim or sink. Remiraz 09:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Without getting into an argument over whether gaming press coverage is necessary / sufficient for notability, I'd like to point out the game's virtues. To my knowledge, persistent-world 100-way capture the flag hasn't been done before. The game mechanics blend LoRD and TW:2K2 in a way that is, in my estimation, fundamentally new. Other MMO's have done roleplaying and PvP, but long-campaign strategy (and the community it begets) is the emerging paradigm in the genre. This game does it better than its browser-based cousins, not to mention the most popular game in the world. It's like somebody fused Axis & Allies with Dungeons & Dragons and then connected your kitchen table to every other house in the neighborhood.

This goes a long way to explain why Something Awful, Genmay, Penny Arcade and other (wikiworthy) forums have a significant Nexus presence. I have to think it's the article's style, and not the game's merit or notoriety, driving the removal votes. Parent says as much. Mockturtl 16:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Hi, I've contributed a great deal to this page (though as an exopedian it's not that obvious), and I'd like to vote keep because I believe the reasons for deletion don't fit in this case. It certainly doesn't fit WP:WEB as a browser based game, and it is notable regardless of its coverage in the press purely because of the sheer amount of players. If you're worried about the content on the page being lacking, I promise and doubtless others will also endeavour to improve the page further. This seems to me largely a "I haven't heard of this, so let's delete it" AFD, which does not accord with deletion policy. --84.67.51.36 16:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • keep- When I look at the article I can see where it can be improved. I know as a player of Nexus War that maybe the article in question should be declared a Snub until it gets expanded. The information there is all correct, and compared to Urban Dead, the game that spawned Nexus War, Nexus War has the potential to grow past UD (Urban Dead). To me, the article is not about how much publicity the game actually gets, it's about having information out there. Information is the real meaning Wikipedia was created. Nexus War is complex enough to warrant having an article. I agree that the current article is lacking. But improvement is a much better than deletion. So I stand that it should be kept and improved. This sin't some Unclyclopedia article on bungee jumping, it's an article about a real thing.I'm certain there are people in the NW community who would be willing to improve the article. Infested-jerk 17:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Having read many "keep" requests across this page, this is more of a comment to all of you. The issue here is not if the page can be proven worthy of deletion, but if it can be proven worthy of keeping. Despite what many of you seem to think, WP:WEB is, in fact, a criteria and NOT a guideline. As, quite truthfully, Nexus War is not the subject of any reliable publications. Also, from WP:NOT: "Internet guides - Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known." This is more an introduction to the game than anything else, and has nothing like dates of the beginning/end of alpha, or beginning of Beta that an encyclopedia entry would have. The only information is a summary of the game and Jorm's name. However much I enjoy this game, I also recognize that this entry is not encyclopedic, has no statistical information, and, therefore, does not belong on Wikipedia. 19:59, 29 July, 2006
    • Comment - Rather than just saying delete it all, why not tell us what you'd like to see on the page to make it more encyclopedic? What statistical information or other information would you like to see? Surely by answering these questions and helping other people to expand the article, this would help more than deleting the page outright. --84.64.13.108 00:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If there is an issue with the lack of encyclopedic information (and yes, I'm aware that that's not the only issue at hand here), then I would like to attempt to rectify that situation rather than delete the page outright. Give me a few days to see what sort of information I can grub up on the subject, and I'll see if I can at least alleviate the unencyclopedic concerns. Their user-base also seems to be growing at quite a clip (From playing the game, it appears that they generally have at least 200 players logged in at any given moment, and this seems to be increasing rather than dropping), though I don't have reliable figures for the true user-base figures. -- Kirby1024 00:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The userbase numbers are posted to a restricted section of our forums, but I've already stated them earlier on in my keep vote. They're as current as that comment. Anyways, if you need or want more information, and you use IRC, please, come to #nexus on irc.zirc.net and speak with jorm, myself, or any of us. Your best bet would probably be to PM Keolah, Maggah, Meirleach, or myself (Wyn). We'd be more than happy to answer any questions you need, and our own wiki can provide you with a great deal of information. -Wyndallin 01:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are thousands of people registered, with over 100 players online at any given time. As mentioned before, popular forums such as Penny Arcade and Something Awful have large in-game factions.
  • From what I've seen, the game is much more innovative then Urban Dead because it forces the player to specialize their characters to remain effective in their preferred task as they level up. This in turn makes it very beneficial to join a faction, as the skills of each faction member complement each other. As mentioned before, it really does boil down to a 100-way game of capture the flag. Large 40 man raids comparable to those in World of Warcraft are not uncommon.
  • This may be a somewhat weaker argument, but the game only went public near the end of May. For a new non-commercial game made by an formally unknown developer to gain such a large player-base in only three months is amazing. I don't really see the point of deleting, since the number of players will only continue to grow and even if the game is not notable now by the official guidelines, it will be soon. --James 22:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would assume the three main points being argued are:
1. Does NW need to, or already, fall under WP:SOFTWARE?
2. Does NW need to, or already, fall under WP:WEB?
3. If none of the above, is it notable?
I would argue that NW does not fall under either WP:SOFTWARE (as it is not a "software application", and in a category of games that is generally overlooked completely by ANY mainstream media. Whether it falls under WP:WEB is debatable, but it doesn't really seem to apply in this case. In addition, while I have participated in a good many AfDs that allege "WP:NOT a crystal ball", at this point it doesn't need to be. The site has thousands of unique users, with hundreds on at any given time. In addition, Urban Dead has an article as well. It is slightly fallacious to argue that it is not notable at this point by people arguing for a "Keep" as as stated above, Wiki is NOT a crystal ball. But I feel the article is notable. Cleanup it may need, but that's not a reason to delete it either. Tokakeke 04:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is non-notable, there is no way to "make" a subject notable. Wikipedia is not a platform to advertise or establish noteriety. Ifnord 05:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment- But is is a place to learn about things. So tell me. Does the article act as a public relations ploy or does it actualy give out information? I feel it's the latter. The article in question really doesn't show vanity and it certainly isn't just a propaganda or advertising platform.
  • Keep-I'm well aware that people not familiar with NW are having to take the word of the players for it, but as someone who has personally watched the growth in playerbase from day one of beta, and before, I can say that if this is deleted now, because it is not "notable" enough, it'll only have to be restored later when everyone is convinced it is "notable" --Lancensis 16:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Judging by the comments here and the size of the community behind the game, it rides on the cusp of the "notable" definition, such that its notable status currently depends on how one defines notability. So at the current moment call the situation balanced. But since it shows signs of increasing membership, I think we'll have to nudge it in the direction of "notable". Or, if not that, we'll have to look at some clearer criteria. But I think that the continued existence of the Urban Dead page at least invalidates the requirement for "respectable sources" coverage, because as far as I know there is no substantial coverage of that game in any respectable source. (There may be a one-sentence throw-away reference somewhere, but such a reference really establishes nothing that can't be better established in other ways: e.g., visiting the listed URL.) Joshua Nicholson 19:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Many of the delete votes note that the article does not have properly "encyclopedic" information like player numbers, start of alpha, et cetera. I'm more of a Wikipedia reader than contributor, but it's my understanding that one of the main purposes of using the wiki format is to permit members to improve articles themselves rather than requiring them to be discarded. "It's not good now, so let's not give it a chance to become so" is not a valid argument by any stretch of the imagination. Speaking as someone who plays this game and is an enthusiast of games and browser games in general, I can attest that the growth in player numbers in Nexus War has been nothing short of astonishing and, if anything, appears to be accelerating. The design innovations it has introduced are remarkable as well. Finally, for those arguing that this can't possibly be noteworthy because it hasn't been covered by the press or other "reputable" sources, it's worth noting that internet phenomena in general tend to be poorly covered. The next mention I see of Slashdot in the mainstream press will be the first (not saying there haven't been any, just that I haven't seen them), and I'm a certified news junkie. --McSnatherson 02:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Fans of the game, please do not argue against deletion using reasons below.

1) This game has a huge player/fan base : Please do not quote large number of players unless you can prove it. I investigated into this matter and found out that there are only around 150 "characters" online at any one time. It is hard to see how there could be even 1000 "active" unique players in the game based on this data. (note: 1 unique player can own multiple "characters" in the game)

2) This game is "better than" another game : Please refrain from citing reasons like "this game is better than World of Warcraft" or the more general "this game is good/fun". All these are POV opinions and not facts. Wikipedia do not delete software entries based on POV opinions.

3) Using other wiki articles as examples : This discussion is about this article only. If you feel that there are existing wiki articles that "deserves to be deleted more" then feel free to nominate them for deletion on their respective pages. The existance of other articles is not an excuse to keep this one.

If this game indeed have a huge player base and thought to be good (or better than mainstream commercial MMORPGs like some claimed) then it'll eventually earn coverage and become notable. From what I understand, this game was heavily inspired by Urban Dead which earned itself three citation from notable sources. Remiraz 10:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - It's an AP based game. For the most part, characters are only logged in for 5-10 minutes at a time to spend their AP. That does not mean that there "must be" fewer players than was stated. The data on the number of players came from the game admin himself. Also, I would like to point out to you the most similar games to Nexus War, Category:MU*_games, many of which have far fewer players than NW does. And I will state again that "notability" is not a viable criteria for deletion and never has been, in spite of what some people like to insist. --Keolah 06:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'm not a fan; I'm a moderator on the wiki associated with the game, and also a playtester. Brandon Harris is the game creator, and is therefore on the shortlist of people who actually have access to the programming and the database, and he has a habit of posting current stats in the playtesters' forum. I have access to current numbers, but only secondhand. I posted them straight from Mr. Harris' post in the forums. If you wish, I could get screencaptures of the forum posts - but somehow, I think you wouldn't accept them as proof, either. Also, please keep in mind that any one player can only have three characters unless they donate to the game or were present in the Alpha phase, and therefore if you divide the total number of characters by three, you're likely to find a relatively accurate number of accounts with the game. Research, research, research! -Wyndallin 10:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - First of all I tried the game and know that it definately takes more than 5-10 minutes to spend all APs from full. Second, the only way to log into the game is through its website: if there are more than 8000 active unique players logging into the game twice or more everyday shouldn't there be a lot more traffic than those shown on Alexa? Finally, the existence of other similar wikipages has never been a deterrence from deletion. If you feel that those pages deserve to be deleted, please nominate them for delete. Otherwise, they have nothing to do with whether this wikipage stays or go. Remiraz 10:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - I don't expect you to believe that this screencap is authentic, as per my earlier comment, but here is a capture of the most recent data that I have access to with regards to account information. Whether you choose to believe it is authentic or not is immaterial. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v35/Ladayna/proof.gif -Wyndallin 10:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment - That's the total number to have signed up in the game's history, rather than the total playing every day? --Grole 11:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment - That is the current number of undeleted accounts, this is true. Regardless, 'playing every day' is misleading. Some people play day-to-day. I certainly don't play every day. With ten characters, I don't have the time or the inclination to play them all every day. I'll try and find out the number of accounts with at least one active character. -Wyndallin 11:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment - Are inactive accounts included in that number? I know the game keeps track of who is active and who is not, as you can find factions filled with grey 'inactive' names. --James 17:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - There is good reason why Alexa is not an acceptable measure of a site's "notability". Alexa's traffic ratings only indicate how many people using Alexa's toolbar are using a site, which is extremely subjective and most people don't even use Alexa's crap. Plus there's been some talk of Alexa's ratings being compromised by people intentionally trying to boost their ratings on it. (The same can be said of Google to some extent, but Google tends to be more widely used.) Alexa was rejected as a method to determine "notability". --Keolah 17:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Once again the argument devolves into dubious claims of "non-notability". Allow me to address your points individually, Remiraz:
1) Re: player base: While I sincerely appreciate your effort to actually investigate the item in question, it would be nice if you'd also make an effort to understand how the mechanics of the game affect the number of concurrent users at any one time. In short, the AP mechanism means that users will typically only be online twice a day, and only for a few minutes at a time -- this happens to be directly mentioned in the article itself and should be apparent from a quick perusal of the game. The number of concurrent users you quote (150) is quite large when considered in this light.
2) Re: Comparisons to other games: Agreed. NPOV statements and comparisons to other games do not belong in this discussion. However, this same standard should also apply to NPOV claims of "non-notability", e.g. claiming that a game can't be as good as others simply due to lack of mainstream media attention. To your assertion that "Wikipedia do not delete software entries based on POV opinions" I counter that this is exactly what you are attempting to do.
3) Re: Using other wiki articles as examples: Agreed on the point of comparing this article to others that may or may not deserve deletion. However, pointing out articles which have set a precedent by surviving similar AfDs is entirely acceptable. The mention of BattleMaster above is indeed pertinent to this discussion as it has just survived an AfD proposed on the same grounds as that for Nexus War.
I'd now like to add my own items to your list if I may, for the benefit of those championing deletion:
4) If you're going to question the size of the player-base, at least make a passing effort to understand the game mechanics. If I were to claim that chess is non-notable because I watched a game and never saw more than 2 players, I'd be betraying a flawed understanding of that game, and this instance is no different.
5) Don't resort to straw man arguments. When verifiability of an article is mentioned, don't couch your argument in terms of notability.
6) Don't use Alexa as a measuring stick (ever). To quote WP:SET: "Alexa rankings are not a part of the notability guidelines for web sites for several reasons." Ignoring Alexa results is especially important when measuring a game such as Nexus War or Urban Dead. Players of these types of game tend to favor Firefox since the game community releases Firefox extensions to aid gameplay, such as NWTool and the Nexus War Homing Beacon. Alexa, on the other hand, is compatible only within Internet Explorer and would therefore never register many, if not most, of the users.
-- grummerx 22:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) It would be nice if the people who have access to the secret player stats told us how many people were actually active in the game.
2) Whether the game is as "better" than others is irrelevant. If someone claims the game is non-notable and that it must be a bad game, it's only the non-notable aspect that this AfD concerns itself with.
3) No, this is just as bad. Battlemaster and Shartak seem to have survived simply because nobody who agreed strongly with the AfD happened to read the page, and because somebody who disagreed with it decided to close it. A couple of articles sneaking through AfD doesn't mean they should be kept forever (articles often come up for deletion multiple times), and particularly not that all similar games should automatically be kept.
4) Again, it would be nice to actually see some figures about the number of players, and the number of retained and active players.
5) That's fair enough.
6) It might be erratic, but even if players of these games mostly use Firefox, Urban Dead has an Alexa ranking of 14,711, compared to Nexus War's 200,691.
And to add my own:-
7) "I think this game might be notable one day" is an argument for deleting the article and recreating it if its subject becomes notable, rather than keeping it and waiting. (People should accept the possibility that this game may never become notable.) --Grole 03:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) Agreed, these figures should be published. However, my comment was in response to Remiraz's own investigation of the game, wherein he was able to see that there were "around 150" characters active just at that moment in time. I was merely pointing out the fallacy in Remiraz's use of a flawed extrapolation of this number to claim that there couldn't be very many real players in the game.
2) Again, note that I agreed.
3) I do happen to agree with your points about the other AfDs not necessarily being set in stone, but must point out that doesn't preclude us from mentioning them. AfDs don't happen in a vacuum, and similar AfDs elsewhere on Wikipedia are most definitely valid points of discussion, whether or not you happen to agree with the outcome. We don't necessarily have to follow their precedent, but you can't just pretend those AfDs don't exist.
4) Agreed, see point 1.
5) ...
6) Please, please, read WP:SET and Alexa. There is absolutely no reason to continue referring to Alexa. Continued mentions of Alexa just serve to distract from valid points of discussion.
7) Perhaps. My contention though, is that Nexus War is notable now, or at the very least can't be shown as "non-notable" by any honestly applicable guideline. Please refer to my comments on the AfD for Pardus. To summarize:
  • The only real notability guideline that has been claimed here is WP:WEB.
  • WP:WEB was designed to weed out trivial, easily created, sites such as vanity pages and web comics.
  • Nexus War and the other games in this category are not easily created, and do not easily attract a user-base of thousands.
  • Applying WP:UCS and considering the spirit of the law makes it apparent that WP:WEB wasn't intended to weed out non-trivial creations such as these.
  • There should perhaps be a notability guideline for these sorts of games, but until one exists it's better to err on the side of leniency rather than to delete legitimate information.
-- grummerx 07:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although I am not a gamer, I do enjoy Civilization and a few other simulations, but in my opinion games are not encyclopedic unless they are mega-notable. And Nexus has it's own WIKI: NexusWiki. Perhaps just keep the page with a link to Nexuswiki and then lock the page. --HResearcher 02:24, 4 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nexus_War&oldid=1259874189"