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. The discussion, notably after the thorough discussion of sources by Tokyogirl79, can be summed up as "no consensus between delete and weak keep". There was canvassing but this does not seem to have noticeably skewed the outcome. The article survives by default by a slim margin, but can be relisted if it is not improved in terms of sourcing in a reasonable amount of time.  Sandstein  21:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MonsterMMORPG[edit]

AfDs for this article:
MonsterMMORPG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not demonstrate the notability of the game. Quinto Simmaco and I read through the references and they are little more than game guides, interviews, and/or Pokemon comparisons. Primefac (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvidrim!, courtesy ping, considering the discussion below czar ⨹ 18:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive comments by blocked user (and rebuttal)
Disagree with user:Woodroar why? Because Woodroar is certainly not neutral nor objective with his/her claim. I believe he/she is under very heavy influence of others and also and an article written by him/her has litte to 0 noteable references (Young)_Pioneers which makes claim very biased FanOfNaruto (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC) — FanOfNaruto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I may have been under the influence of others last month, maybe even last week. But I haven't consumed anyone for at least a few days. Woodroar (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive comments by blocked user
Disagree with user:czar why? Because I found an article written by him/her which I believe he/she is related to Brainwashed_(website) with little to nothing references. So I don't believe he/she is fully objective with this decision and it is biased FanOfNaruto (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC) — FanOfNaruto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
As for coverage the MonsterMMORPG page has four references listed - video game reliable sources. The listings are as following: full article by Jessica Conditt on Joystiq, full article by Chris Priestman on siliconera (Alexa Rank: 10454 , Page Rank: 5), game listing on GameSpot and editorial given game wiki on IGN. They also include the following references that are English and all have editorial publishing: Kyle Hayth article on browsergamez (Alexa Rank: 208890, Page Rank: 4), Remko Molenaar and Darren Henderson editors article at OnRPG (Alexa Rank: 68021, Page Rank: 5) which is currently being discussed to be whether added or not video game reliable sources and currently listed there, game listing on whatmmorpg (Alexa Rank: 817321 , Page Rank: 2), editorial game listing and special given developer blog on mmorpg.com (Alexa Rank: 12513 , Page Rank: 5) which is currently being discussed to be whether added or not video game reliable sources and currently listed there, editorial approved game listing on indiedb (Alexa Rank: 16606, Page Rank: 5), editorial game listing on gameslikefinder (Alexa Rank: 50514 , Page Rank: 3), editorial game listing on xmmorpg (Alexa Rank: 209912 , Page Rank: 3), editorial game listing on gameguyz (Alexa Rank: 59045 , Page Rank: 3), game listing by staff Demetrius Crasto on techshout (Alexa Rank: 84868 , Page Rank: 5), editorial game listing on newrpg (Alexa Rank: 1248161 , Page Rank: 0), editorial game listing on mmogames (Alexa Rank: 38427 , Page Rank: 3), editorial game news on kpopstarz (Alexa Rank: 11928 , Page Rank: 5).
The non english noteable references are as follows: game article and extensive video by Marlene Kless on games.de (German, Alexa Rank: 313642 , Page Rank: 4), editorial game listing on 07073.com (Chinese, Alexa Rank: 3197 , Page Rank: 5), game article, listing and review by Allan Valin on baixaki.com.br (Portuguese, Alexa Rank: 593 , Page Rank: 6), game review by Anh Đức on game4v.com (Vietnamese, Alexa Rank: 9576 , Page Rank: 2) which is currently maintenance but visible at google cache, game review by M.İhsan Tatari on oyungezer (Turkish, Also Printed, Alexa Rank: 34818 , Page Rank: 4), game news by Ceyda Doğan on merlininkazani (Turkish, Alexa Rank: 18095 , Page Rank: 4), game news by Engin Yüksel on teknolojioku (Turkish, Alexa Rank: 16365 , Page Rank: 5), editorial game news on indir.com (Turkish, Alexa Rank: 27852 , Page Rank: 3), editorial game news on frpnet.net (Turkish, Alexa Rank: 170997 , Page Rank: 4).
There absolutely could be more listings, news or articles added, but when all the information provided is consireded, I believe this game deserves to be listed on Wikipedia. Knost05 (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC) — Knost05 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Alexa and Page Rank don't matter. The reliable sources we value have staff authors with a background in something like (games) journalism and by-line (not a pseudonym), editors and editorial policies, and a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as demonstrated by third-party sources citing their articles. We don't care about games databases, fan/user-submitted material, linkfarms, PR releases or self-published articles, or trivial content like two sentences and a screenshot. We need substantial articles written by third-parties to prove that a subject is important enough to warrant an article on the English Wikipedia. (What other languages allow or don't allow also doesn't matter. They're all separate.) I should also mention that you appear to be involved in the development of the game yourself, which is a conflict of interest that you should have divulged immediately. Woodroar (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely believe that there are substantial articles proving that this game is substantial enough in importance that it deserves an article on English Wikipedia. According to WP:RELIABLE , news organizations can be counted as reliable. References siliconera, browsergamez, techshout, teknolojioku, 07073 are counted as news sites within Google, who don't count a site as a legitimate news site lightly, meaning these sites have been found worthy and have the authority to be counted as news sites. Indiedb and Baixaki also have a lot of references from websites that are counted as legitimate news sites on Google. Also, MonsterMMORPG being listed at IGN, Engadget, Absolute_Games, GameSpot means this game was noteable enough to get their attenion and get added to their websites by staff members. This is important because they don't simply add every game to their listings, especially Indie games. Add to the list onrpg editors as they have a great history with game journalism. Now, looking into Alexa and PageRank, I believe they do matter. Alexa rank is an important aspect to legitimize if a site has authority/is respected or not. If these sites were not an authority on their subject, they would not get the amount of visitors needed to legitimize it as an authority on Alexa. And per the Wikipedia page on PageRank "PageRank works by counting the number and quality of links to a page to determine a rough estimate of how important the website is." If properly investigated, I believe that you will find that none of these references are fan/user-submitted material, linkfarms, PR releases or self-published. Knost05 (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As for my involvement with MonsterMMORPG, I did not know that I needed to divulge whether or not I played this game as I thought this was a discussion about the merits of MonsterMMORPG and not a closed off back and forth between current Wikipedia editors. Who I am to MonsterMMORPG shouldn't matter. What should matter is that the references are evaluated on their own merits. Knost05 (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which they were. And the implications of a conflict of interest should be straightforward. I suggest reading through the guideline if you may have one. czar ⨹ 00:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a "closed-off debate", you're free to participate, you're just supposed to disclose your connections to the subject too. Sergecross73 msg me 18:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive comments by blocked user
Disagree with user:Be..anyone delete claim why? Because Be..anyone is not neutral nor objective with his/her claim. While quick checking articles written by Be..anyone I found that he published an article which has little to no credibility references which makes article definitely does not pass noteability threshold Microsoft_Download_Manager. Even though I did not notice any major problem with categorization, recategorize seems reasonable option when category number is taken into consideration FanOfNaruto (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC) — FanOfNaruto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Disruptive comments by blocked user (and rebuttal)
Disagree with user:Lady Lotus why? Because Lady Lotus is not neutral nor objective with her claim. While quick checking articles written by Lady Lotus I found there are some major WP:RS problems. For example Beauty_Brands which i strongly believe her own company, has 1 404 returning references and 3 nothing notable references. FanOfNaruto (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC) — FanOfNaruto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
FanOfNaruto WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - you need to keep this discussion about the article in question and not go after articles that editors have worked on. There is no bias. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive comments by blocked user (and rebuttal)
Disagree with user:Sergecross73 why? Because Sergecross73 is not neutral nor objective with his/her claim. While quick checking articles written by Sergecross73 I found there are some major WP:RS problems. For example Danganronpa:_Unlimited_Battle has little to nothing, very thin references. FanOfNaruto (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC) — FanOfNaruto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
That's got to be one of the most bizarre WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments I've come across in my time here at Wikipedia. Even if I did make an a non-notable article (I didn't), I fail to see how that would affect my neutrality with this particular article. (And not that it has any bearing on this article's status, but please see WP:VG/S, you'll see that majority, if not all, of the sources in the article have a consensus for being usable in the capacity that I used them. And there's more that have popped up since then that can be added to the article. So your accusations are both irrelevant and flawed conceptually. Sergecross73 msg me 19:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive comments by blocked user (and rebuttal)
Disagree with user:FreeRangeFrog why? Because FreeRangeFrog is not neutral nor objective with his/her claim. An example article written by FreeRangeFrog and it has very little to none references Tiefer. According to him/her Tiefer article is noteable while this article is not which clearly displays biased decision FanOfNaruto (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC) — FanOfNaruto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You cannot point to another article and argue for retention based on that. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 18:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jéské Couriano I don't see any other way how to show bias going on here — Preceding unsigned comment added by FanOfNaruto (talk • contribs)
The only bias I can see is from the SPA posting rebuttals to every single delete vote which have no basis in Wikipedia's policies while hurling accusations of bias. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. Because there is no bias going on here. Sergecross73 msg me 19:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete disruptive single-purpose account.
  • Strong Keep. To be able to fairly critisize this article I read a lot of pages and other articles. After evaluating backlinks and all claims here, I concluded that this article by far surpasses overall Wikipedia Video Games articles noteability threshold. I agree with Salvidrim! and Knost05. I feel that there is an extreme bias going on at this discussion. It feels like some editors contacting others to vote for delete. Critiques are being made with bias. At the top of this page I am quoting written text "Welcome to the deletion discussion for the selected article. All input is welcome, though valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements; discussion guidelines are available. Be aware that using multiple accounts to reinforce a viewpoint is considered a serious breach of community trust, and that commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive." The bold part clearly shows the bias going on here. I could not resist but to register and make an argument because I can not bear unfairness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FanOfNaruto (talk • contribs) — FanOfNaruto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The article is listed here as part of a general list of Articles for creation submissions that have subsequently been nominated for deletion. That's how I found out about it, though it's important to note that any article going through those processes will be listed there. PS: FanOfNaruto has been indefinitely blocked. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
  1. Silicon Era. SE is a reliable source, but this is an interview which is sort of depreciated as a source. I personally don't think that interviews should necessarily be seen as a SPS unless it's one of those scenarios where the post is a guest post by the developer or where there isn't really any real back and forth with the interviewer. There's enough meat to this in the content before the interview to where I'd consider it usable.
  2. Oyungezer. From what I can see, this does have an editorial staff per this page and the article was written by a staff member, which is a bonus. As far as content goes, the article does give off some PR vibes but ultimately seems to be an overview of the game. I'd consider this usable as a RS.
  3. Haber Import. This comes across strongly like it's taken from a press release, either partially or fully. It's not marked as a press release (these are primary sources and cannot show notability) but it also lacks a clear author and I can't really find anything on the website to show that there's any editorial oversight. There is a page of authors, but nothing to show their credentials or even that they were the author of this piece. I wouldn't count this as a RS.
  4. Game4V. This one is iffy. The page looks nice and it's an outright review, which would be helpful, but I can't find anything on there about editorial oversight. This page does sort of give the impression that they have editors, but none of it is clear. Unfortunately since they don't have that posted, I have to err on the side of caution here and say that it wouldn't be usable offhand unless someone can find something more definitive on the website.
  5. Merlin'in Kazanı. This one is similar to the previous one in that there are things like this that give off the impression that there's an editorial process but no real guarantee that there is one. However that's sort of a moot point here since this post is so brief that it's essentially a WP:TRIVIAL source and not one that would give notability.
  6. Teknoloji Oku. This has the same issue with verifying the editorial oversight. This is really what does in most websites. Even if it looks fairly obvious that the page has an editorial board, it has to be verified. Sometimes this can be bypassed if the site is especially well known but this is kind of what harms a lot of foreign language websites- they're usually not known on Wikipedia. This doesn't mean that we should accept the websites based on the fact that there is a language bias on Wikipedia, just that this can be a barrier for finding sources.
  7. Engadget. The site is a RS, but this is an interview. It's mostly filled with responses by the developer, so this runs a little afoul of the whole SPS. Personally I do find interviews to be an indication of notability, but I don't think that they should be the only sources.
Ultimately what we have here are three usable sources: Engadget, Silicon Era, and Oyungezer. Two of them are interviews and Oyungezer is a little iffy since it looks to be somewhat based on a press release and doesn't appear to be a review of the game itself per se. It's enough to where I can see arguments for a weak keep, but it really should have more/better sourcing than this if it is kept- otherwise it will likely get challenged and nominated for deletion again. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've posted this response two other places, but I wanted to make sure it was seen by the people in this discussion as well. My relation to the game is that I'm a Chat Master for it's chat function and I play the game. I wasn't asked to create an account to argue this point I was asked to go and fix it up as the person that created it did a pretty poor job. When I went to the page to edit it I saw the Delete Nomination at which point I weighed in. I didn't think I needed to state my direct relation to the game, but after reading Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) explanation I understand why this might have been of importance.

'I would like to apologize for my role in the back and forth of it all, but I do stand by my opinion. I believe that this game is getting railroaded when it has a legitimate reason to be added to English Wikipedia. When looking at some other games, as the much more aggressive/unprofessional user added under me, it seems your editors aren't as strict.

'Either way, I understand that as it is the page is lacking, but it does have some articles that would count as references and I hope the page gets a weak keep at the very least so that I have an opportunity to edit it and get it up to snuff.

'Thanks for your time, Knost05 (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CANVASSING. The Superonline Iletisim Hizmetleri user 176.233.41.152 has been energetically canvassing people to come here. -- Hoary (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I got an invitation by some ip person to come here as a neutral party. I am a bit puzzled by a comment user @Woodrar made. "The reliable sources we value have staff authors with a background in something like (games) journalism and by-line (not a pseudonym), editors and editorial policies, and a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as demonstrated by third-party sources citing their articles." May I ask how you would know whether a writer's byline was indeed his true birth given name or a psuedonym? Thanks if you get a moment to answer that. Until then, Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can't know for sure, but usually you can take a pretty good guess based on what the name is. If the person writes by the name of "Don Johnson" and/or is known outside of the website by such a name, then its likely their name. If they go by "Doombringer1987", you make a pretty good guess that's not they're real name. Many video game and music websites allow any old person to create an account with any old name and let them write whatever they want. This sort of content fails WP:USERG - it's not considered a reliable sources in the Wikipedia context, and thus, is not usable to prove the notability of a subject. Sergecross73 msg me 17:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassed by new user (assuming same IP entity), I agree with the above statement that it should be moved out of the mainspace and put in the draft namespace. ~HackedBotato Chat with me ♽ Contribs 16:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you point out with sources you find to be both reliable and cover the subject in significant detail? Also, not being an orphan is hardly a testament to being notable. Virtually any article can linked to if you try hard enough, notable or not. Sergecross73 msg me 20:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Knost05, you should start cleaning it up now; if the article really can be salvaged (I'm still hedging my bets) then it should be improved before the AfD closes. Primefac (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac Of course, I'll get on it as soon as possible. Thank you again everyone for your time and patience. Knost05 (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassed. :l By the IP listed above. However, I don't exactly see any reason to delete the article, so... Weak Keep? Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, on second thought, this (possible sock-puppeteer) canvasser is starting to grind my gears. Speedy Delete per G11. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Siliconera bit is good, as listed at WP:VG/RS, which says that its "Interviews can be used in any article"; and Engadget is also listed as an RS. That's two good sources (although they're both interviews, which makes me a little hesitant, but not enough to change my !vote), and I unfortunately don't know Turkish to be able to do anything more than speculate based on the structure of the rest. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 03:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WPVG rated Siliconera as having situational reliability—it's a niche blog that we only use for English coverage of Japanese games. Of course, this is an interview, so it's somewhat in-between that and a self-published source. The three sources in question are indeed secondary, but can they be used for notability? The two main English sources are interviews unregulated by a fact-checking or editorial mechanism. czar ⨹ 12:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, interviews by reliable sources can contribute to notability. While not strictly secondary, they aren't strictly primary either - some level of fact-checking of things said in the interview will occur at quality publications. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2015 (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.
More