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 - the single source does not (as has been mentioned repeatedly in the course of the AFD) support the mass of original research that comprises the article. Yomangani^talk 23:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qpawn[edit]

Very non-notable website, its Alexa ranking is incredibly low and it seems more like vanity than anything else. Veesicle 21:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Its an important part of nationsim history, reason enough for its page to exist. Itake 21:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is part of nationsim history, you should easily be able to cite multiple history books and history articles where its part in nationsim history has been recorded in detail, thereby showing that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied. Please cite sources to demonstrate that what you claim is true. Uncle G 23:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh yeah, must be in the same books I find sources for internet stuff like leekspin or utterly retarded stuff like List of films by gory death scene? Nice try. Itake 00:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You will notice the existence of Loituma Girl#References and List of films by gory death scene#References. The latter does, indeed, cite a book. It seems that you are stating that there are no sources at all to cite. As such, you yourself have just made a convincing argument that this article should be deleted. You've also belied your earlier claim that this is a part of nationsim history. Once again: Please cite sources if you wish to demonstrate otherwise. Uncle G 10:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Once again, the sources are other website. Which rely on other website, and so on. No books. You wanted books, no? Itake 12:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I asked for sources. Uncle G 12:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Read here,It is hard finding information on nationsims, not much is documented.angel6dk
          • That's a mirror of Geo-Political web-based simulator, which itself cites no sources at all. Wikipedia is not a source. Please cite sources. Uncle G 12:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, but the sites themselves are sources filled with information about the games themselves and the history of the games. Those have been added as sources, happy happy happy. Itake 10:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • An original history and analysis of a web site that is generated from direct observation of the web site is original research. Interpretations and analyses require sources, which "the sites themselves" are not. Even then, if the only history or analysis of a web site is not independent from the web site itself, the web site does not satisfy our WP:WEB criteria. Uncle G 12:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepQpawn is one of the largest nationsims on the net and is currently a large game. It has a large fan basis. Most of the traffic goes direct through the forum, while the Angelfire siteis used for players joining the game. The article contains Qpawns history (is still being worked on) and how Qpawn is extremely important in the world of nationsims . angel6dk 23:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no information in the article about Qpawn's 'importance' in nationsim history. As someone else said below, there are also no sources available to back up that claim. --Veesicle 16:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • look at This, Qpawn was used in a course run by Massachussets Institute opf technology. This must be reference enough in my oppinion. angel6dk
      • No, it isn't. That source is a presentation whose sole discussion of this web site comprises a single slide that contains three bullet points telling us that QPawn is "Web-based", has "Real countries", is "Run by moderators", and is "forum-based". That's 1 sentence of information. There's nothing in that source that supports the content of this article. Uncle G 12:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you search the web or bookshop. You will find nothing written on Nationsims game. The best reference and history is written in Wikedpia. If you look at Nationsims games based on a forum, you will also notice that Qpawn is one of the most successfull and largest. The fact is that there is a lack of information on nationsims, and searching it, the only information leads to a Eikedpia article on nationsims. Qpawns importrance is mentioned here. It was not written by a Qpawn member. The fact is when you search the web that nothing is written on nationsims shows that the area is still in development. Or there is simply bot enough to write a book on the subject. Lets face it, a book on nationsims will be boring. Because the games are forum based, little evidence is there to create a history of nationsims. Qpawn startet in 1998,ask anyone in the nationsim world, most consider it the first. As there is no information or articles on nationsims,This must count, --angeldk6 19:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia mirrors are not sources. The utter lack of any discussion of these subjects elsewhere outside of Wikipedia does not change that. Please familiarize yourself with our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.

      "You will find nothing written on Nationsims game. The best reference and history is written in Wikedpia." — In other words, this article violates both our Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policies. You have just made a solid case for its deletion, one that can only be contradicted by citing the sources that you have said do not exist. Uncle G 20:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not meet notability per WP:WEB. Nothing shown that third-party reliable sources have written anything non-trivial about this. --Charlene 21:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:WEB Computerjoe's talk 22:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Qpawn is listed as the 13th most visited browser game on alexa rating Considering most visiters log on directly on our forum and not tjrough the main page, this seems to show the game is important angel6dk 23:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:WEB. Eusebeus 00:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While it has been said before, I'll repeat it: It has important historical value in nationsim history. Dealing with entirely web-based phenomenon like this makes citing sources more difficult, particularly when Qpawn was one of the founding forces in making nationsims what they are today. Simple Wordsmith 08:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are no sources to cite, there can be no encyclopaedia article. It's that simple. If your argument is that there are no sources to cite, then you've made a strong argument to delete this article, even though you've prefixed that argument with the word "keep". Your argument that there are no sources cannot be out-voted. Your only arguments for keeping are sources, sources, sources. There has yet to be even one single source cited, either in this discussion or in the article. Uncle G 16:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep QPawn is a nationsim that is not only fun, but also educational. It teaches the player about history, geography, politics, economics and quite possibly, teaches the player a few things about themselves! It's page MUST be kept. Tarkus3 14:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does the 'fun' of the game have to do with it's notability? --Veesicle 16:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep QPawn is certainly significant enough, as it is a nation sim which has continued to exist for quite some time. A lot of nation sims have died, including some mentioned on the page about nation sims, but Qpawn has managed to continue its existence in some form or another. Rabble Rouser 15:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Qpawn is a large game, made by the original creator of the Qpawn dynasty. There are now more nationsims on the net than many other types of games. These add variety and this page should be kept because this genre of game is one in its own and deserves its own page. If this page is deleted, Wikipedia has squashed the game as not notworthy enough (being the first and official QPawn) to be noted. All of you who do not feel that this page is notworthy should try it sometime. --Euphoria X 18:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Qpawn in by far the best nationsim on the web. The majority of other nationsims have either been inspired from Qpawn or have borrowed many of its fundamental gameplay attributes. It is also worth noting that Qpawn has an unbelievably high activity rating which is not common among nationsims. The reason for this is largely because people find out about Qpawn through wikipedia, which keeps new players coming. Deleting this article would adversely affect the game and unless that is the goal of deleting it there seems to be no reason for doing so.
  • "people find out about Qpawn through wikipedia, which keeps new players coming" — Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard. Uncle G 20:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A Source can be found here This, Qpawn was used in a course run by Massachussets Institute opf technology. This must be reference enough in my oppinion, considering there is not much information on nationsims besides what there is in Wikepedia angel6dk
  • It's not. It's 1 sentence's worth of information. See above. Uncle G 12:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the MIT source cited by angel6dk. Perhaps also the article could be expanded to explain its significance without turning it POV. Basically, I think it has more potential as an article than a lot of the other things we've been deleting recently, and in this case I don't think the lack of easy citations is necessarily its fault, since that genre really is niche to start with. --Jemiller226 20:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The MIT source contains 1 sentence's worth of information about this web site. (See above.) Where are the sources that support the rest of this article? Uncle G 12:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you want other sources, fine, but I feel fairly strongly that you need to make a distinction between notability in a community and notability worldwide. I edited a page last night on some cooking website I'd never heard of and didn't see any multitudes of sources for, but the site's been around a long time and it wasn't a vanity article, so I saw no reason to send it to the deletion crew (whether it be speedy, ProD, or AfD), and I've been pretty quick on that particular trigger lately. This is all to say that notability must be relative in the cases of certain genres of websites, music, and so on, or there won't be any mention of any of them on Wikipedia whatsoever. I realize this isn't the place for that discussion, but is that really what you want? At the very least, it should be a Redirect to an article about nation sims, as per WP:WEB, the policy you yourself keep citing as a reason to delete. --Jemiller226 21:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are wrong. There is no reason to make any such distinction between community fame and wordwide fame, because notability is not fame nor importance, as you erroneously think it to be. The PNC in WP:WEB does not make any such distinction, and rightly so because it is addressing notability, not fame. The PNC requires multiple non-trivial published works from sources independent of the web site (and its creators/publishers). I've asked for such sources five times, now. If the web site whose article you edited is not the subject of multiple non-trivial published works from independent sources, then it too does not warrant an article on Wikipedia.

        For this web site, a redirect is only appropriate if, per Wikipedia:Redirect, the subject would warrant discussion as a sub-topic within an article with broader scope. But since the only source that has been cited contains 1 sentence's worth of information, if that, there's not even enough source material for a sub-topic. As stated right at the start, for this subject to warrant mention even in an article on nationsims, it has to be shown that it has actually been recorded as a "part of nationsim history" (as claimed). Despite repeated encouragement, neither you nor anyone else has cited a single source to demonstrate that it is, in fact, a part of nationsim history, and that it warrants any mention anywhere in Wikipedia.

        Sources, sources, sources! Uncle G 13:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        • Let me start off by saying that you have a very interesting definition of the word notable. Notability is neither fame nor importance? Then what, precisely, is it? Princeton University seems to disagree with you, by the way. If this is deleted because fame is not notability, maybe I should go AfD Paris Hilton or something. After all, what's she done to achieve notability aside from being famous for fame's sake? You basically say on your user page that notability has nothing to do with anything aside from having sources to cite, but then you go on, on that same user page, to list all sorts of things that notability is not, including verifiability, which at first glance seems to fly in the face of notability being nothing more than multitudinous sources.

          At the end of the day, Uncle G, three-quarters of the articles on Wikipedia would be gone by a strict reading of your "rules" for notability. While I understand what you have goals and you are trying to make a point, that doesn't necessarily make you right for it.

          Lastly, you are flat-out incorrect about what WP:WEB states. "Websites or content which fail these guidelines but are linked to a topic or subject which does merit inclusion may be redirected to that topic or subject rather than be listed for deletion." Wikipedia:Redirect has nothing to say on the matter; it's just a list of reasons to redirect and a how-to for doing so. It's not a list of reasons to delete instead of redirect. --Jemiller226 20:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nice try Uncle G. We're discussing the deletion of the entire article, nothing else. The MIT article is a source, don't change the subject. Itake 23:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the subject. WP:WEB requires multiple non-trivial published works. The MIT source contains 1 sentence's worth of information about this web site, and doesn't qualify as non-trivial. For the fifth time: Please cite sources. Uncle G 13:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, ah, ah. Now we're getting somewhere Uncle G. Its no longer about violating wikipedia policies, its about the fact that YOU don't belive the sources. Which is, entirely, your problem. Itake 13:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• QPawn is one of the largest Nation Sim on the net. If you are going to take this off the site than you might as well take off anything to do with nation sims, pbp rpgs or rpgs in general. DON'T TAKE IT OFF THE NET! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanCromwell (talk • contribs) 2006-11-22 23:09:11
  • We are discussing the deletion of a Wikipedia article. It has nothing to do with whether the web site itself remains operational. Uncle G 12:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable game with enthusiastic sockpuppet following. No independent hits on google. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not a sockpuppet. Look at my edit history. It's mostly stub sorting, but I've been here for a long time. --Jemiller226 21:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And look who's talking, a member of something as retarded as the "Association of Deletionist Wikipedians". Atleast we know you're not biased (insertdisbeliefsmileyhere). Itake 23:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Address the argument, not the person. Uncle G 13:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please quit being so ridiculously agressive, this is a debate, not an argument. --Veesicle 21:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No its an attack on perfectly good articles on wiki. Itake 13:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, this is Getting hit over the head lessons -- RoySmith (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable sources, it doesn't meet WP:WEB and thus ultimately fails WP:V. Whispering 22:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.' To the extent any nation or political simulator article is "notable", this one most certainly is. It is an important and well known example of the genre, and as is noted above, it has been recognized at least once by a very reputable, independent source. I don't see how this doesn't conform to WP:WEB (Which states that content is notable if it is "distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators.") and commonsense guidelines for notability. Structural problems and problems with sourcing can be dealt with and are no grounds for having the article deleted for all time. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 04:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.