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. There clearly is insufficient community will to delete this, and sources have been added since Moreschi's "original research" argument, which is cited by most of the opposers. That said, I think the article needs a complete workover. It's emphasis is on the workings of this system, not on encyclopedic information about it such as its history and influence. I cannot delete this right now, but I do think if its principal authors don't rethink its approach it will be deleted. This is not a website for gaming manuals. Chick Bowen 23:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DKP (2nd nomination)[edit]

DKP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I nominated this for deletion 6 weeks ago - here's a link to that discussion. My argument was that, while this article is undoubtedly very well written, it is completely devoid of reliable sources and therefore is 100% original research. The keep !votes in that discussion amounted to "DKP is notable!" without providing any sources to back up that claim, or even worse, "This information isn't available anywhere else, how can we get rid of it?" My question is how can we keep information that isn't available anywhere else? Wikipedia is not a place for original thought. Anyway, in the meantime, the only additions to this article have been more links to guild wepsites advertising their particular version of DKP. Take a look at the external links section - they are all to guild websites and DKP calculators and not a single one is to a reliable source describng DKP. A google search turns up one student whitepaper on the subject that might qualify as RS, but even then, the effort to rewrite this article with that source would require starting from scratch. Since there has been no improvement on this article and none forthcoming, I am renominating it for your consideration. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Tarinth 12:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The whitepaper you mention (I assume, since you provided no link) is actually authored by university professors, not students. Edward Castronova, one of the authors of this paper, is actually a noted economist that focuses his research on virtual world. I linked this whitepaper in my vote below. Psychochild 10:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete A fan-made concept with a lack of reliable sources isn't notable. Phony Saint 17:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • An absurd statement. What is "fan-made" supposed to mean? Is that supposed to belittle the concept? Are significant pieces of software used within an Open Source program made by "open source fans?" I hope you comprehend the parallel. We're talking about a category of software used by millions of users. Tarinth 12:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's completely unreferenced and seems mostly complied of original research. No reliable sources provided, no article, WP:N. Moreschi ^Talk 17:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep there are plenty of sources, they are just not footnoted. This is a relevant article and well made. -Rebent 17:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment - this is totally untrue. --Haemo 01:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep This article is well written and extremely useful. -NickKovacs 18:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, it's useful?

just because some thing's useful doesn't mean it's useful -Rebent 01:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep The article cites the best sources available at the time for a very real, very prevalent concept. Indeed, it fits perfectly into the milieu of of an encyclopedia. Declaring that this is original research is at best, misleading, and purely agenda driven at worst. The information is available at the links provided. The challenge to their notability is refuted when one accepts that traditional legacy media and sociological researchers lack the frame of reference necessary to address this concept, and are thus, not experts. The individuals designing and using the systems for distributing digital wealth then, become experts themselves. Their notability arises from the widespread use of DKP as a concept for said digital wealth distribution. With over 8.5 million users subscribing to World of Warcraft in the US alone (see http://www.blizzard.com/press/070307.shtml) and a significant portion of those subscribers using DKP to assign loot (see the aforementioned whitepaper) it's clearly prevalent enough to warrant an entry - I havn't even mentioned individuals in countries like Korea or Japan or other countries. The article should be updated to include references from the whitepaper and other research as soon as such research becomes available, not deleted out of some misguided devotion to a culture and a research community just barely coming to grips with the consequences of digital wealth. Research regarding this top may soon become available. I would encourage those so eager to delete the article to visit http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/ for research, published and otherwise, in progress on DKP and similar topics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cylus (talk • contribs) 21:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC).— Cylus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 21:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To be fair, the 8.5M figure is worldwide subscriptions. The linked press release shows that there were 1.9 million purchases of the expansion in North American territories; in other words, this is the minimum number of subscriptions in the territory. Psychochild 10:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - This is rapidly becoming a re-hash of the original debate. Yes, it's WP:USEFUL. Yes, it exists. Yes, it is true. None of these things satisfies the the problem that this article does not have a single reliable resource per WP:RS. That's what makes it original research. If it's just going to stir up the single purpose accounts to come out and cast their !votes to keep it because it's a great article, then fine, but please would someone who wants to hang on to it provide at least a compelling argument as to how it satisfies policies and guidelines? Arkyan • ^(talk) 21:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think my contribs clearly document that I'm not a single-purpose account :) Frankly, you've made the argument for why it should stay for me, Arkyan. You essentially state that removing this article would remove a real, useful, and true source of information from Wikipdeia. The article does lack good sourcing, but the AfD has already identified sources amongst scholars and media. My objection is using the AfD process as a forum for article improvement--other alternatives could be being bold by trimming the article or blanking large sections you think cannot or will not be sourced. By deleting the article, it suggests to everyone that the subject itself is hopelessly unnotable and unverifiable. I don't feel either of those are true. I'd like the article to have an opportunity for further improvement. Tarinth 13:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - On the contrary, I would argue that the sources cited ARE reliable. Further, they are some of the ONLY sources available. This is not original research in any intellectually honest sense. I also note the ad-hominem snipe. I made this account some time ago, and haven't used it much, yet this has no effect whatsoever on the logic of my statements, which you failed to address. If you've bothered to read the WP:RS entry recently, you might note this: "This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." This is an exception, as it is an exceptional topic. Cylus 22:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cylus (talk • contribs) 21:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment That WP:RS is "just a guideline" does not mean you can ignore it when you feel like it. We could just go to the relevant policies, WP:V and WP:NOR: it is original research and unverifiable according to Wikipedia. We can always recreate the article if and when reliable, independent third-party sources publish research on the concept, but not before then. Phony Saint 23:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Ignore it, no. I read it, hence I haven't ignored it. However, the nature of the topic warrants exactly the kind of EXCEPTION mentioned on the page. The sources are unusual, but so is the topic, so it should stay. Wikipedia, and those that read it, gain nothing from this article's deletion. The attempts to do so exhibit a blind devotion to the letter of a rule without any fundamental comprehension of what that rule was meant to accomplish coupled with a dogmatic insistence on undermining the legitimacy of anyone who is not a "professional" journalist or researcher. Merit is more important than a certificate or some other arbitrary pedigree. 167.10.240.127 16:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep As an enduring concept used in at least a dozen MMOs I can name. Sure it's a fan-made concept, so are virtually all internet memes. Wintermut3 01:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is totally unsourced! There are literally no sources in this this entire article - if this is seriously a "notable" and "enduring" concept, then where are the facts. I could go through this with a ^{[citation needed]} gun, and literally every single fact would be suspect. I mean, the lead of the article contains a factual assertion with no sourcing! I can't believe people are willing to totally ignore policy and keep an article that violates policy so blatantly basically because they like it. Source it or delete it - don't dither around with content like this. It's either encyclopedic, and you can source it, or it's unverifiable original research and should be deleted. --Haemo 01:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is a quite notable MMORPG concept. I came here to double-check a link because I wanted to share this information with some fellow game developers on an online RPG project I am consulting on, and was mildly surprised to see it up for deletion. One problem with citing sources is that most sources are on individual guild pages which tend to be ephemeral. Each individual MMORPG guild have a different system and policies, and these will also be different between games, so there is no one "universal" source of information on the topic. I'd also notable that this page is referenced by quite a few external sites (such as this site) as a detailed article about the concept. There is an academic whitepaper on DKP that could be used for citation, although it focuses more on the effects of and theories of the system rather than a detailed description of such a system. I'd add the citations myself, but I have consulting to do. Brian Green 10:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Is the topic notable? A websearch suggests so and it has even attracted scholarly interest ([1]). Can this article harm Wikipedia? Hardly. Does it provide valuable information? Very, very likely. So keep. Stammer 18:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC). Ooops, I see Brian Green got that before. So, as per Brian. Stammer 18:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Although this lacks footnotes, it is highly accurate. The problem with articles of this genre are that there is nothing "real" to footnote. The DKP systems relate to games. The items that it is used for are virtual. All of the DKP systems noted above are conceptual. They are systems used and manitpulated by guilds in MMOs. This is currently the only consolidated article available online. All of this inbformation in one form or another can be found online. Refrences are difficult to comeby since there are literally thousands of versions of the systems explained in this article. As, the only consolidated reference available online, it would be truly a shame to delets it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.9.10.2 (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment In other words, it's original thought not published anywhere else? If WOWWiki or any other gaming wiki wants to write about DKP, they're free to. A single whitepaper does not constitute multiple independent reliable sources, so it doesn't belong here. Phony Saint 18:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Moreschi Gretab 23:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per previous AfD. Iceberg3k 01:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ATT and WP:NOR. The complete lack of sources is undefensible. Jtrainor 03:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The article is actually cited as an authoritative source outside Wikipedia. This scholarly paper, by Edward Castronova, contains the following statement, "The wiki page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DKP contains further systems developed by gaming groups,and some of the allocational and political goals the systems further". Stammer 04:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, the whitepaper cites this page? That's even worse then; you're using the whitepaper as a source for this article, and the whitepaper uses this article as a source. It's not an independent source at all. Phony Saint 05:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it cites this page, but why are you asking me? Can't you verify it on your own? I pointed out the reference because it confirms the topic's (not the article's) notability. And in any case, I did some work out there checking facts (ever heard of that?) that I could share in this discussion. Stammer 05:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC). I realise that my tone above is unnecessarily abrasive. Apologies. Stammer 07:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a rhetorical question; at any rate, it's not notable if it lacks "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic." A single whitepaper which seems to draw information from the Wikipedia article itself does not confer notability. Phony Saint 13:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Pretty stunning that a professor would cite Wikipedia in such a manner. --Haemo 05:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be equally stunned if it cited the Britannica? Is reliability out of question for Wikipedia? Stammer 05:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said cited in such a manner; impermanence is the nature of Wikipedia, and a citation like that doesn't give context. --Haemo 05:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is non-trivial, however "impermanent" weblinks are routinely provided as helpful references in newspaper articles and in informal scholarly discussions (e.g. seminars). I guess that permanence of relevant information should be a goal of Wikipedia, but that's just a personal opinion, which arguably does not correspond to policy. Stammer 06:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC). Actually it does correspond to policy, through WP:V, which is at the core of this discussion. Stammer 06:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But my point was, what academic would cite a web resource in such a way - especially in an academic paper? I know it boggles my mind, given all of the training we have centered around citing accurately, and the positively reams of material based around how to cite web resources. --Haemo 06:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In essence, you're arguing that because Wikipedia is a useless resource, it should not be cited by an academic. Thanks for the vote of confidence; let's take the site down. Castronova is a well-respected academic in his own right. Why don't you take a look at his Wikipedia page? Saraid 05:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, in essence, you're reading a lot of hookum into my comments. I'm saying that citing a web reference - ANY web reference - without giving a date is a bad idea, because of the nature of the internet. This is elementary material, and any college English covers explains exactly why you're supposed to do this. It surprised me that a professor did not do this, given that any given freshman would in a their paper. --Haemo 06:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The purpose of WP:OR is to prevent pet theories, not to remove articles that describe current and undeniable phenomena. The article does not, in any way, advance personal agendas on the part of any of the editors, near as I can tell, except the desire to, I don't know, create an encyclopedic entry on a specific topic. Previous usage of the term in academic paper is also discoverable on Google Scholar. In other words, the term not original. Also referenced by Nick Yee in his MMORPG Lexicon. You ask for reliable sources, but fail to note that all of the external links are, in fact, primary sources. They are examples of DKP systems in use. Saraid 05:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We aren't asking for just reliable sources, but multiple independent reliable sources. Yes, there's a whitepaper, but the whitepaper cites this article itself as a source. Even the article's talk page indicates that people are doing their own analysis on this. Phony Saint 18:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case, why don't you take the contents and merge it inside another article? Having established that it's WP:USEFUL, why delete it? I would recommend placing it inside the MMORPG article, since it pertains to that subject. It would fit well in the Economics section. Saraid 06:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was one of the principal contributors for the economics section of the MMORPG article, and while I think that it would be a good improvement to that article to include some passing reference to DKP, I think the subject is far too large to consider merging. It really needs to stay in its own article. Tarinth 14:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per previous AfD - nothing about this has changed in the last two months. The DKP article contains about as much in the way of citing as is really possible -- as Saraid points out, we really only have primary sources to go on at the moment, and the list of external links at the bottom of the article is a reasonable good assortment of such. Particular points might be more closely attributed to a particular source, but that's a matter for edits, not deletion. Kemayo 17:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC) — Kemayo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep, (changed to speedy keep, added at bottom along with reference documentation for the sake of indentations...) this is a widely recognized cultural phenomena/meme/social-self-organization/what-have-you within the online gaming universe. Perhaps the article can be improved considerably, but AfD isn't the appropriate forum for article improvement. I also suggest to the nominator that resubmitting the article for an AfD so soon after the last one is poor form and tends to waste a lot of time. Tarinth 13:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nearly seven weeks is considerably sufficient time for an article to improve, at least in some small measure. It has seen no improvement whatsoever and there is no reason for myself or anyone else to assume the situation would change in an additional six more weeks, or six more months for that matter. What, then, do you suggest is long enough to give an article a chance to improve so as not to waste time? Arkyan • ^(talk) 22:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think establishing a "deadline" is artificial. The article will be improved over the next few years just as most of Wikipedia shall. The notability of the subject isn't in question; it defines a category of software used by millions of users. I suggest that WP is better served by enhancing and improving articles closer to one's own domain of expertise. Tarinth 12:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record I am quite familiar with DKP, I have been playing World of Warcraft nearly since its inception and have been well exposed to the concept. However that something exists or is even popular is not in and of itself a reason to keep an article. My contention from the beginning has been the lack of reliable sources and that is still the case. While I appreciate your opinion that this is a WP:IAR case and the inherent notability of the subject trumps the lack of sourcing, it is my contention that no amount of inherent popularity dismisses the need for reliable sourcing. If Wikipedia is ever to become a truly respected source of information then we must be adamant about ensuring the information we provide is sourced, factual and reliable. That cannot be accomplished without reliable sources. Arkyan • ^(talk) 17:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never thought I would have to create a Wikipedia account just to keep a reference that is known so well by the MMORPG community and has been adopted by millions of gamers worldwide due to the objection of one person. The personal attacks in this section have gone far beyond what the rules of this website allow. I have made the necessary corrections for validity. I encourage others to do the same as their knowledge of the history to this subject allows. I hope this ridiculous debate will then come to a close. If Wikipedia deletes the entry, know that WOWWIKI.COM includes it as valid subject matter. --Jadess 04:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, is sourced. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 04:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If by sourced you mean "It has a collection of links to a bunch of fan-created guild sites and doesn't source a single statement in the article, let alone source its notability," then yes, it's sourced. Phony Saint 04:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT That is a false statement. One of the sources, in the very first paragraph, is the originator! That is NOT just a fan link! The entire misunderstanding here, is that some people did not bother to read, nor click on the first paragraph. That has been now corrected to reflect that they are the source. AFTERLIFE is the source. It was first archived 7 years ago and has a tremendous following of outsources including [2] Everquest's own reference to it in their Knowledge Database. Please read before you make these comments. --Jadess 06:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That source provides no evidence to support that - in fact, it doesn't even assert that. Phony Saint is right about about the sourcing for this article. It's not only bad - it's non-existent. --Haemo 06:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was from 7 years ago and hasn't changed. That's the source. The system is likened to the early DIKU MUD point systems and inherits its originality by formulating points for Everquest boss mobs; an original history page of which has been provided in the Wiki page for reference and accountability. Tailored modifications thereafter stem from its use specifically to MMORPG hobbyists, known as DKP, across genres of MMORPG-specific games. If you persist in attempting to delete subject matter based on your ignorance, that I know for a fact to be true, I will start reporting the people responsible. Learn the subject matter or refrain from your malicious, untrue, unfactual, statments. Or email AFTERLIFE yourself. Nevermind, I already did, since I know you won't. Rather then just ask the source yourself, you'll just deny the validity of it here. --Jadess 06:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think you understand what kind of a source we're talking about here, and I don't appreciate being talked to in such a way. I have made no "malicious, untrue, unfactual, statments" on this page, and I resent being characterized as such. Encyclopedia articles should not require emailing Guilds to establish a fact a reference is supposed to provide. --Haemo 07:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The large number of software packages that self-describe themselves within the DKP category makes the subject notable per se. This is certainly within the latitude of WP:N and if not, WP:IAR should be adequate for justifying its existence. I completely agree that the article could be better sourced and could be enhanced considerably. In the course of the AfD, people have already identified scholarly sources amongst noted economists that have recognized the subject, and perhaps there's some opportunity to improve the article further after the AfD ends. Tarinth 13:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • • FYI Hameo, I emailed the creator of the system. DKP, as a gaming point system, is not so earth-shattering that anyone would have felt it needed such precise bibliography akin to SCOTUS legal citations. It should suffice that many, who were there for its inception, provided the synopsis. I note further, that not ONE person, out of the countless who have viewed this entry, allege the stated source as false. Furthermore, per Wikipedia, the guideline suggests entries "should be sourced", not that they "must" (see also: Tarinth's notes). The purpose is to avoid "plagiarism or copyright violations", none of which applies here. This is a valid entry and has a source as submitted and has not been contested by ANYONE known to these games. All arguments to the contrary are out of ignorance of the subject matter and a veritable enjoyment at griefing, well after countless explanations and attestations have been provided; activity of which will be reported if it continues. --Jadess 15:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • To be fair, verifiable sourcing of an article is quite central to Wikipedia inclusion guidelines. It's just my contention that the subject is patently notable, and that it's likely that reliable sources could be found. In my opinion, articles of clearly notable status that have the potential for great improvement should stay and be improved, and without establishing artificial deadlines within which to do so (this is a volunteer organization, after all). Perhaps the article is a candidate for the Article Improvement Drive. Tarinth 16:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• (unindent) "Likely"? You think we haven't tried to find sources already? We have two sources: a bunch of guild sites, which don't fit the "reliable, independent sources" category, and a single whitepaper which uses the Wikipedia article as a reference, meaning it's not independent or multiple. There is no "patent notability": you're confusing popularity with notability. The threshold for inclusion is Wikipedia policy, not just a notability guideline. Phony Saint 18:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • • • COMMENT**** Again, mistatements, untruth and biased prejudice. What part of "All images and text on this page, unless noted otherwise, belong to the organization of Afterlife. Any reproduction in part or whole without consent of Afterlife is prohibited", did you not understand? This is the bonafide source. It has confirmed 7 year archival references by independent sources cited herein. Enough said. You are wrong. Contest the validity with proofs to the contrary or withdraw your argument for lack of factual contradictions. --Jadess 00:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • We're not contesting the validity of their claims - because they don't make any. Nowhere on that "source" linked do they claim to have invented DKP. That means it's not an adequare reliable source. If I linked to a book by Milton Friedman where he talks about his wife, and said it was a "source" for the face that he was a Chicago School economist, would I be right? No, of course not - that's what this reference does here. --Haemo 01:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

• Speedy Keep recommended due to new reference additions. I recognize that since DKP is an overwhelmingly popular concept, that it makes locating the scholarly and media sources amongst the huge number of other Ghits difficult. Since I'm hoping we can stop wasting time with this AfD, I've located the following sources which I believe are quite reliable, and amending the article. The references I've added are:

• A scholarly work by Edward Castronova and Joshua Fairfield that documents the subject: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=958945

(Note: I don't believe this is the same scholarly article by Castronova previously mentioned during the AfD; this article actually documents the subject, as opposed to providing a passing reference to WP's article.)

• A Ten Ton Hammer article on the subject of DKP. Ten Ton Hammer is a significant website within the MMORPG media with a large number of contributing writers (I'm not referring to their forums). They've been used as a source in numerous other places. Their article: [3]

• A Stratics article on the subject of DKP. Like Ten Ton Hammer, they're a significant MMORPG media website. Their article: http://wow.stratics.com/content/features/guides/raiding/raidloot_oppenheimer.php

• A reference to Nick Yee's MMORPG lexicon:

[4] Nick Yee is a PARC researcher noted for his extensive scholarly writings on the psychology and sociology of MMORPGs.

Since I found these sources in about ten minutes of careful Google sifting, I stand by my earlier assertion that sources are "likely" and not only that--but that additional sources would continue to be likely amongst the 4 million+ Ghits on the subject.

I've gone ahead and edited the article to reflect the additional references, and I've removed the "unsourced" tag from the article head. The two media sources are sites with multiple contributors that assert editorial authority over content, meeting the requirements of WP:RS and Nick Yee also meets the standards of WP:RS as a noted scholar who is widely published and acknowledged by his peers; Castronova's credentials are certainly not in question and his paper deals entirely with the subject of DKP. I hope this brings the debate to a close. Tarinth 19:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yes, that is the Castronova article people repeatedly state is a reliable source despite its reference to this article. If that whitepaper takes information from this article itself, how can you cite that as a source?

• I have just read the whitepaper. Have you? If you have, then you'd know that the statement here is untrue. This is a relatively long paper (on the order of 10-20 times longer than the WP article) that documents a number of things, utilizes a bunch of other sources, and is written in a scholarly tone. Yes, it is true that the Wikipedia article is mentioned within the whitepaper, but the only purpose in doing so is to refer readers of the whitepaper to a list of known DKP systems (presumably he's referring to the "external links" section of the article). The vast majority of the article deals with a description of what DKP is, and is a rather good source for the content of the WP article. I find the notion that simply mentioning Wikipedia in a scholarly article somehow undermines its credibility as utterly absurd. Tarinth 21:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. No disrespect to Ten Ton Hammer, Stratics, and Nick Yee (I'm familiar with the former two, they're nice sites for guides), but they're not sources on the notability of DKP, just how to use them. Are you proposing we write articles on various types of aggro and tanks simply because the MMORPG community uses them a lot? I assure you I can find plenty of articles on how to use those, but I'm not about to write an encyclopedic article on them. (Actually, there is an article for Tank (computer gaming), but it's not reliably sourced either. See the problem?)

• The fact that a media source discusses a concept or topic has consistently been a criteria for establishing encyclopedic notability on Wikipedia. That's exactly what those articles do, as they are articles that deal entirely with the subject in question. Tarinth 21:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. It's not enough to cite 2 sentences out of dozens (if not hundreds) in the article to reliable sources; the majority of the article must be cited or derived from a source somehow. If the talk page wasn't a big enough clue, the majority of the article - comparison charts, economics and all - are original research by the editors here. Transwiki it to a gaming wiki if you must, but this article does not belong here. Phony Saint 21:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Email sent to abuse@wikipedia.org regarding this ongoing harassment. --Jadess 01:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good luck, and next time read WP:HARASS. Phony Saint 01:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • • I did. "This page in a nutshell: Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles, repeated personal attacks or posting personal information." That's all you've been doing despite numerous attempt to educate you. You are, unteachable. This is nothing more than griefing on your part and you enjoy it far too much; hence the report. Your threats are noted. Your personal attacks laced with repeated sarcasm are noted especially. Good luck yourself, seriously. Get a life! --Jadess 01:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Show me any edit where an editor did any of those things. --Haemo 01:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In cases where a source is established earlier in the article and additional information is derived from the same sources, it isn't necessary to pepper the document with "ibid"-type references to the same source over and over. In any case, a lot of additional citations could be developed here, but these sources were provided to bring the article above the standards required for inclusion. We've had similar discussion over on the Evolution page where it's been agreed that you don't need to have citation on every single fact in the article (which would result in near-unreadability) when the facts are reasonably well reflected in the sources already presented. In any case, the fact that there's 4 references now probably takes it above the current level of referencing for about 99% of articles. Tarinth 21:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So where does the economics analysis come from? Who started the DKP controversy? Who decides what basic and variant DKPs are? None of that comes from any of the sources you listed, and is never going to come from any independent reliable source because it is OR. If you want to create a new DKP article based on reliable information, be my guest, but the current incarnation with rampant OR and lack of notability has to go. Phony Saint 23:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but you don't seem to understand what the guidelines regarding WP:OR are.

On OR: Wikipedia itself does not *publish* OR, but it most certainly does use *outside* original research to support articles when the sources of such research are reliable sources. The Castronova article is a primary source, written by a recognized economist with expertise in this field, and deals directly with the subject matter. The TenTon and Stratics articles are secondary sources that deals directly with, among other things, one of the subjects you questioned (variations of DKP systems). When primary and secondary sources such as these deal with a subject, we regard them as expert in their domain and as such they are used to support articles in Wikipedia. Ultimately, *all* knowledge that is used as source material is traceable to original research since there's no codex of perfect knowledge that we can refer to in all matters. In any case, I beleve it is evident that subjects such as the economic implications of DKP and the variations of DKP systems is quite thoroughly reflected amongst the references I added.

On notability of article content: WP:N establishes the notability of the subject article itself, which can now be established through the references provided; see the subsection on "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content." All you are doing now is arguing for improvement of content, which is not an argument for deletion; and in any event, individual sections of the article need not establish notability on their own--if they did,articles would be threadbare indeed! May I suggest you learn a little more about Wikipedia before you adopt entrenched positions that involve the destruction/deletion of other Wikipedians' work? Tarinth 00:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I very well know what Wikipedia's guideline on OR is; my point is, the majority of this article's information has not been published anywhere else before. Most of the article needs a rewrite, either to delete wholly unsourced information or to make current information actually reflect sources. The economics section goes beyond what Castronova discusses; half the DKP systems aren't mentioned in any source; most of the pros and cons aren't discussed anywhere. Were it just a problem of OR, I would go with a week keep.

However, in addition to the OR problem, notability has not been established; Ten Ton Hammer and Stratics are primary sources, the articles being written and published by players. You can use them for information, but not for establishing notability itself. There aren't any independent, reliable secondary or tertiary sources.

I am arguing for deletion because the article:

• Is content not suitable for an encyclopedia (specifically, not a game guide)
• Fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (presumably WP:N, or possibly WP:WEB)
• Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources (the weakest of the arguments, but it's still technically one)

Those are valid reasons for deletion, backed by policies and guidelines. Phony Saint 01:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Actually, all of the sources cited (TenTon, Stratics, Castonova) are secondary sources (I incorrectly stated earlier that Castronova was primary, but he's offering analysis and has not written a DKP system). The only primary sources are the DKP systems themselves (i.e., the software written that has categorized themselves as such), DKP documentation, and the authors of the DKP systems. The writers at TenTon and Stratics are journalists analyzing the information; the fact that they might also play games in which DKP is popular isn't relevant. Castronova is clearly providing analysis and synthesis. On your specific points:

* 1) There's no guideline specifically regarding "game guides," so presumably you are referring to the section that eliminates such content as an example of "indiscriminate information" which this is not (it isn't an instruction manual). This clearly isn't a "game guide" (it isn't giving you a walkthrough of how to do something in a game). It's documenting a real and verifiable social/economic phenomena which heretofore has only been criticized due to the lack of good sourcing, which has now been addressed.

* 2) WP:N requires multiple sources. WP:WEB doesn't apply because this isn't an article about a website. WP:SOFT probably applies since the article describes a category of software. In any case, it appears that this article is well-above the minimum bar established by the relevant guidelines.

* 3) Originally, the argument that it could not be attributed to reliable sources was the "strong" argument favoring the article's deletion, because there were no sources. This has now been addressed. You admit that it's now the weakest argument, except that I'd go further to say that it is a non-argument for the reasons already presented. Tarinth 11:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Journalists? That's stretching it. TTH's article is written by a WoW community manager - he's paid to write for WoW, and the Stratics one was written by a WoW player ("Submitted in the WoW Stratics TBC Beta contest" is a clue as to its origins.) WP:N requires multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic, and I have severe doubts about the independence and reliability of articles written by WoW players from a WoW perspective. Castronova would be okay were there other sources as well, but his reference to the Wikipedia DKP article is troubling. The original problem is still not addressed, if all you have is a whitepaper and a couple of game guides on how to use DKPs. Phony Saint 15:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we get off the "Castronova used Wikipedia as a source" argument? That simply isn't true. Read the whitepaper. All he did is mention in a footnote that Wikipedia maintains a list of known DKP systems. The paper itself is scholarly research. You aren't really adopting that position that Wikipedia must disqualify any source that simply mentions Wikipedia in the article? Is Yochai Benkler's definitive text, "The Wealth of Networks" not a valid source of knowledge about social and collaborative networking efforts because he mentions Wikipedia extensively in his book? There's really no difference here. And as for TTH and Stratics--I see no distinction between their writers and the people who contribute, for example, reviews of gadgets to Popular Science. Naturally, the people who write the articles are going to have knowledge of the domain, and are likely to be players! Tarinth 23:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I created the DKP system back in '99, and wrote the article on Afterlifeguild.org referenced above. Jadess emailed me asking if there is anything I can do to help with this deletion conflict. I have never published anything stating I am the creator because I'm not interested in self-promotion, but it seems that humility is creating problems. What can I do now to help? Thottx 18:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's not a whole lot that we could use from the original creator; we're not questioning if you actually created the system, we're questioning if it's notable in the Wikipedia sense, which is described at WP:Notability. The only coverage that we can find are guild sites, MMORPG guides, and a whitepaper, none of which satisfy notability requirements; if there are any independent sources discussing DKP systems that you know of, that would help tremendously. Should the article survive deletion, we could use your help in rewriting the article. Phony Saint 21:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thanks, Thott! Actually Phony, you guys did question the source and we had to actually trouble this man to take time out to come here and authenticate himself. Scroll back, it was refuted several times but I think you know that, you're just backpedalling at this point. As to notability, we already told you why it needs a separate entry. It's because the system is cross-platformed among so many games today, it requires its own entry. To bury it amongst a single title doesn't do it justice and deprives those interested from even finding it from the adage it is known to be, which is DKP. --Jadess 01:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We didn't question Afterlife as the original creator; we questioned it as a reliable, independent secondary source. You still haven't defined how DKP is notable according to Wikipedia guidelines instead of your own opinion on the matter. Phony Saint 01:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Per WP:V, Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The policy further goes on to state that self-published sources are not acceptable as sources. For this reason I must discount the links to guild websites as unacceptable, as they are all self-published with no editorial oversight. I must also discount the links to Stratics and TenTonHammer for the same reasons as being self-published sources of information lacking reliable accuracy and fact-checking. This leaves only the Daedalus project website - which, while self-published, appears to be published by an expert in the field - and the whitepaper. Unfortunately the link on Yee's website is to a barebones dictionary definition that provides no contextual information and is insufficient as a source. The whitepaper, depending on its content, could be the trump card needed for this article, but as the whitepaper references the Wikipedia article, its utility as a reliable source is severely limited, as we are therefore effectively self-referencing. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. Given the fact this article still lacks any reliable sources it is still a gross violation of WP:OR and I must decline Tarinth's request to withdraw my nomination, and will strongly reiterate my opinion that this article is not fit for inclusion on Wikipedia. Something like this is better suited to some place like Wowwiki, and I strongly advise the interested editors to move this information over there where it belongs. Arkyan • ^(talk) 22:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What exactly is wrong with Stratics and TenTon? Those sites, along with a handful of others, are the media of the MMORPG industry. They certainly are not self-published sources (they both have contributions from dozens of journalists). They both assert editorial authority. Your judgment that Daedalus "looks" better is simply an opinion. The fact that independent journalists from the MMORPG media have covered the subject of DKP is what makes it notable. What is the difference between prominent online publications that deal with the subject of games--versus, say--boating, programming, management, etc.? Tarinth 23:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stratics is more akin to GameFAQs - that is, anyone can get an article or guide published there. The TenTon article is written by a WoW community manager (who is paid by Blizzard, unless I'm misinterpreting that title), so you can hardly call that independent journalism. Just because Stratics and TenTon have some news articles like this one does not make every article published by them reliable or journalistic; in this case, they're written by people who have a vested interest to write wholly about WoW-related topics (a player and a CM). Phony Saint 00:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're misinterpreting the roles. The "WoW Community Manager" title refers to a role within the website itself; paid Blizzard staff don't write articles for Stratics or TTH. It's untrue that "anyone" can write content for Stratics; it isn't GameFAQs, it isn't a Wiki, or a general blog. Articles have to be accepted by the editors of both sites. They have forums where anyone can contribute, but that's separate from the library of articles developed by their editorial staff. The fact that it was published in an area geared toward WoW players is not relevant because it still meets the definition of "independent of the source," i.e., it is not written by Blizzard but by the people who cover the news topics pertaining to Blizzard. Virtually every consumer industry that has attracted millions of enthusiasts have their own media dedicated to them, and the fact that they're interested in the subject matter doesn't disqualify them as independent media (unelss they're a house organ, i.e., a magazine owned and directed by the company soley to promote them). In any case, we're not even dealing with an article about Wow or Blizzard or its products, but a economic process (DKP) that existed *before* WoW as documented in the other sources presented. Tarinth 13:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP or take every single contribution on gaming references off of Wikipedia entirely because those people will then be called liars despite their proofs as well. Take it ALL off. We don't need another web page advertising nothing more than a game anyway. That is, in effect, all you are reducing this information to include, so why bother having millions of fans look for an encyclopedia that can reference valid, individual and well-used contributions when the Wikipedia will obviously be lacking in that area. Just take it all off and give it to Wowwiki who doesn't give us these hassles. We'll just distribute the information on well read boards that this place doesn't allow it and recommend everyone delete their entries voluntarily. The old forums have thousands of entries of testimony that the source is the original source. Arkyan didn't bother to look those up, but we don't need further proof. Most of the people here knew that much. The original Afterlife website stamped their ownership which is good enough per copyright law, stated as much on their forums, but apparently that isn't good enough here. Just put this link on the major boards, especially WoW General where millions read, and everyone can go just go elsewhere so Arkyan and friends can be happy.

I don't think you're grasping the substance of my argument. I have no qualms with Afterlife's claims to have invented the DKP system, and "ownership" of it is not what is being disputed. Nor are there any questions regarding copyright status here. The only question is one of the factual reliability and verifiability of the sources in question. They don't satisfy Wikipedia inclusion standards - that's all there is to it. Arkyan • ^(talk) 22:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, there must be enough independent, reliable secondary sources to establish notability. It's all well and good if millions of players know about it, but if it's not notable, it's not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability is not popularity. Phony Saint 22:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)*[reply]

Comment I suggest you peruse WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, poster of the above rant. Jtrainor 01:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment First you guys balked that Afterlife wasn't the source. Now you're saying you have no qualms with it and that the problem is "notability". Then I look up notability and that says it just needs to be "sufficiently notable to be included as a separate article in Wikipedia", which this is, because this is a system that is used in just about every MMORPG. If you stuck it under World of Warcraft and someone from Everquest II was looking for it, they wouldn't find it. Gamers know to look up DKP, not the game name. Basically, you go back and forth baffling people with a bunch of nonsense so why bother? You're losing out on a great viewing audience for doing this. People have bent over backwards to inform you why it needs to be this way, but there comes a time when it's not worth it anymore. You have stated outright to go put it on Wowwiki, not here. Ok, whatever. True, there are alternatives to Wikipedia. Duly noted. I don't recommend you continue treating contributors this way because someone else is going to pass you that doesn't waffle around in what they require. This is a loss you made for Wikipedia, and a promotion for Wowwiki whether you realize it or not. That's what you did. --Jadess 23:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't seem to understand what we say when we say reliable source. No one is disputing that they invented DKP, or whatever else. That's not our job. What we are debating is the fact that the "source" provided from them for claims in the articles does not back up that claim. That's what it's not a reliable source. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not about everything, and we're not in competition with WoWiki - they are welcome to this article, because that's where it belongs. --Haemo 02:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be gentle. Obviously some of the people who have come here don't understand the nuances; they are simply people who have come to know of WP as a good source for information and are shocked that a long-standing article is being debated for deletion. This debate isn't really about Afterlife or who created or it or whatnot. I agree that Afterlife is a primary source that isn't considered suitable per WP:RS. On the other hand, we have a number of other sources that have been identified during the course of the AfD (a couple media, at least one scholarly) and a fair likelihood that more will continue to turn up. The arguments against the sources presented have been: a) that the scholarly source mentions Wikipedia, and therefore cannot be considered valid--yet in fact, if you read the source, you'll note that it simply mentions that WP contains a list of known DKP systems and that its analysis contains original synthesis separate from the WP article, and relies on a number of distinct sources. In the case of TTH and Stratics, the argument is essentially that they don't qualify because they are independent (which is untrue, they aren't funded by any company with a material interest in DKP), or that they don't actually assert editorial authority (which is true of their *forums*, but certainly not their article libraries, from which these sources were obtained). Tarinth 13:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break, again[edit]

• Comment - 4 more references added to those already added during the AfD; a small amount of content added as well. The new references and content enhance the controversy sections. Specifically, the references include an article from Escapist Magazine (a magazine that covers business and cultural issues of the MMORPG industry), a GamesRadar article (the Web arm of PC Gamer, the PC game magazine with the largest paid circulation in the world), a CNET article, and a thesis on MMORPG addiction (which probably wouldn't normally be considered a RS, except that in this case it was republished by Gamasutra, which is about the most respected of the game design publications.) Tarinth 13:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No offense intended but the addition of these "references" and the content they "source" make the case against this article even stronger. Not a single one of those four sources are about DKP, and at best relegate it to a passing mention. Worse still, the claims made that are purportedly based on these sources are spurious at best. The first claims "DKP can make the game feel like a second job". Absolutely nowhere in the Escapist article is this even implied - the article is about the business of raiding, not DKP, and DKP warrants a whole sentence there. How about the claim that "DKP systems can contribute to game addiction"? Please show me where in the thesis hosted on Gamasutra that this claim is supported. Again, the only mention of DKP in this thesis is a quick mention of it as "one example of guild complexity". To try and use these sources to make these claims is wrong, and nothing more than a point of view interpretation and yet more insertion of original research by trying to put words in the mouth of these authors. The other two "sources" give DKP a one-line mention but have absolutely zero contextual information about what the system is. The fact of the matter is that this article is still original research. It was written with zero reliable sources, and these attempts to "source" it have been dropped in after the fact. This article is original research, has been original research and will continue to be so until it is completely rewritten on a (thus far nonexistant) reliable source. The policy on original research is crystal clear : "The only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.". No one has demonstrated this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arkyan (talk • contribs) 15:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

* I fail to see how adding more references can make the case for deletion "stronger." These references were not added to support a case for the notability of the subject, as this was already established through the earlier references. We already have three separate, independent sources that deal entirely with the subject of DKP. It is clear that you don't agree that those sources are reliable, although you've never given a good reason why (or at least one I can agree with). As for these additional sources: they are simply supporting relevant content within the article itself,and it is certainly within WP norms to do so. When a source has something important to say about a particular subject it is more than acceptable--it's encouraged--to identify such references, even when that information is drawn from the context of a larger subject (example: the MMORPG article, which is rated a Good Article, contains numerous references to factual information from a variety of sources in which MMORPGs are not the exclusive subject of the source.) Tarinth 15:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* And on your note regarding the addiction thesis: DKP is described within the context of an analysis of organizational systems used to obtain long-term commitment to a group, which the writer believes is something that contributes to addictive playstyles. Tarinth 15:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is your interpretation of the thesis. Nowhere does the writer state he believes DKP contributes to addiction. The only statement of fact given in the thesis is the one I pointed out, that DKP is an "one example of guild complexity". Reading anything else in to the fact that a mention of DKP is included in an article about addiction is reading between the lines - and reading between the lines is inappropriate as far as sourcing an article go. As far as your original statement, when a source has something important to say about a topic, then of course it is encouraged to include it in the article. The problem is not one of these sources has anything important to say about DKP - they are brief mentions at best that do nothing to source the claims they are attached to. My argument has never been about notability - it has been about addressing OR concerns. This has yet to be satisfied. It is obvious you and I have different opinions as to what qualifies as a reliable source for the purpose of demonstrating a topic is not OR, and the debate is becoming circular so I won't belabor the issue further. My point is made, your point is made, and both are based on an interpretation of policy and guideline. I leave it up to the closer of the debate to judge which holds more weight within the context of the other opinions offered here. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed on the addiction reference. I probably read too much into it which may have led to a POV interpretation. I've moved the reference to the lead paragraph, and changed the content accordingly; now I am simply relying upon the source's direct analysis, which claims that DKP is the most common point system used in online games (which itself is an argument of notability, I suppose). Tarinth 15:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arkyan's arguing based on OR, while I'm the one arguing based on notability concerns. Three of the new sources mention DKP in passing - a single line in an article is not coverage at all. The thesis devotes about half a paragraph and doesn't particularly state anything about DKP aside from "people use it." Being common isn't a factor; "A notable topic, by definition, is one that is 'worthy of notice'; this is a concept distinct from 'fame' or 'importance'." Phony Saint 16:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No worries; the latest references were simply added to support individual points made within the article, not establish a case for notability overall. That was already done with the earlier, stronger references which we've already debated ad nauseum. Tarinth 19:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which earlier, stronger references? Stratics, where any player can publish a guide, or TenTon, where paid community managers write articles? Or the lexicon which is just a dictionary definition of DKP? Phony Saint 19:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do you persist in belittling the sources? First, there was the economics paper written by Castronova. Second, there was Stratics, where guides are edited and written by an editorial staff, not "any player" as you allege. Third, TTH, where it was a member of the TTH editorial staff (their WoW community lead) who wrote the article, not the completely incorrect claim you've made about it being a paid WoW Community manager. And even if it *was* a paid WoW community manager, I don't see how that is relavent since this article is not about WoW. It is a subject that affects multiple online games and predates the very existance of WoW. Tarinth 19:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stratics: I would think that a guide submitted in a contest would be written by a player, especially with the player's screenname at the bottom. I could submit a guide myself if I chose to write one, but I'm horrible at writing them.

TenTon: It's useful as a reference for information, but not an independent reference to establish notability. There's a difference. I misinterpreted the "Community Manager" title they gave the writer, but still, he's just a volunteer gamer who writes about WoW, not a high-quality independent reference there.

Yes, I know Stratics and TenTon have independent news articles; but, in addition to those, they have game guides, and their guides most certainly aren't independent reliable sources. Phony Saint 19:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I find it pretty inane that people without any apparent knowledge of this area are arguing for the deletion of an article despite the protests of people that are familiar with the topic. I am an online game (MMORPG) designer/programmer and a published author in this area (see the Wikipedia stub at Brian Green (game developer) or my entry on MobyGames). This topic is certainly notable in the field of online games. Further, I find it funny that the original poster arguing for deletion has created an unsourced article: Xibalba. But, thanks for pointing out the mote in your brother's eye. Anyway, end this silly debate, go request citations where they are needed, and focus on improving Wikipedia instead of trying to look cool with how many Wikipedia guideline abbreviations you can link. Psychochild 19:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I find it pretty inane that, despite the claims of notability, there are no independent, reliable secondary sources on the matter. If it was that notable, surely several actual video game journalists would have written about it, instead of just the typical fanbase guides and a handful of trivial mentions. Phony Saint 19:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Here's a Wikipedia abbreviation for you - WP:NPA. Dredging up an article I worked on more than 2 years ago is a clear attempt to discredit my argument by discrediting me, which is not the way debates are run here. The state of Xibalba or any other article is immaterial to this discussion, funny as it may be to you. (By the way, that article does have a source, check the references.) Then you try discrediting myself (and others) by claiming we have "no apparent knowledge" on the topic while touting yourself as a professional game developer. Just as there is no way for me to know you are who you say you are, there is no way for you to know what I do or do not know. But again, my personal knowledge is immaterial to this debate. Either this article passes inclusion criteria or it does not. The ad hominem attacks on my credibility do nothing to alleviate the unsourced OR state of this article. Arkyan • ^(talk) 19:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • This debate could go on into infinity. Experts in online games have come forth to document this, and provided good soruces. All you've done is belittle the sources that have been introduced in any way possible, all the while ignoring the input of those who--while they may be less experienced at WP--know a lot more about this subject than you do. I completely reject your assertion that the sources provided are not "real video game journalists." Each industry has its media that is specific to it, and *this* is the media that covers MMORPGs. WP:RS specifically deals with this fact, incidentally:

"Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology. In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors."

I assert that the University of Indiana (where Castronova is a noted economics professor), TTH and Stratics all meet this criteria: writing is subject to editorial oversight, the sources are trustworthy and authoritative in their domains. In the context of MMORPGs, these are what count as reliable sources. If we were talking about a source documenting something about Evolution or Byzantine History or Britney Spears, then we'd be dealing with a different set of sources (in each case) along with their own standards of what is considered authoritative. Stop insulting the people who are creating the media that surrounds the MMORPG industry and accept it for what it is--new scholars and journalists struggling to document the evolving, amazing world of virtual cultures and economies within online games. Tarinth 19:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am unaware that I have insulted anyone in this matter? Nor have I said anythinga bout "real video game journalists". To whom are you directing this comment? In any case I think you've hit upon the core of the problem - new scholars and journalists struggling to document the evolving, amazing world of virtual cultures and economies within online games - a fact I can appreciate. The problem is that Wikipedia is not a place to document these kinds of things. We're a tertiary source, not a place for "new information". Arkyan • ^(talk) 19:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a response to Phony Saint. I'm aware that WP is a tertiary source. I was merely refuting claims that the secondary sources provided did not meet the standards of WP:RS. Tarinth 20:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so but wanted to make sure, the indent made it look like it was a reply to me and I was confused. Thank you for clearing it up. Arkyan • ^(talk) 20:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most "editorial oversight" these sites have are either other volunteer gamers on the staff or webmasters (if there is any editorial oversight at all; the writers at TenTon most likely have privileges to submit whatever they want.) The articles sourced are guides written by WoW players, not by independent journalists reporting on a phenomenon. To state that guides written and reviewed by gamers are independent journalism is a misrepresentation of what they do. Phony Saint 20:12, 15 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.