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 per consensus of established editors. --Coredesat 07:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Yet another MMORPG with absolutely no reliable secondary sources. Gets a lot of google hits, but most of them are unrelated; the remainder are from sites relying on user-created content. Contested prod, and probably an a7. —Cryptic 02:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete, fails notability criterion. Delete as per CSD A7. --soum (0_o) 04:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete, obviously has a significant player base if user-created sites exist, but probably not notable compared to other MMORPGs. Lankiveil 06:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Speedy delete per criterion A7. Sr13 (T|C) 06:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A google on "tribal wars" brings up many hits, of course; but looking at the first couple pages, a good percentage of them are for this MMOG. Considering how many different references to tribal wars there must be on the net, that is at least interesting, I think. It also claims "over 200,000" players just on the English server; whether that's a notable number on the MMOG scene I don't know, but it's more than the population of Dayton, Ohio. (There has been some screwing around with this page, with the AfD tag removed for a while and non-optimal versions of the page substituted, fixed for now.) Herostratus 14:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

200,000 is a meaningless number - we don't even know whether it's referring to active or retired accounts, whether it's individual human players or duplicate accounts. --McGeddon 15:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete; as per notability criterion. --KaufmanIsAwesome 01:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Big numbers aside, it has many worlds and servers supporting different countries/languages. That doesnt happen without active players. John Vandenberg 08:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't matter how many active players it has if the only third-party sources are four-line blurbs and foreign language blogs. —Cryptic 08:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This game is very much active. I play it continually and know what I'm talking about.--Weswammy10:17 PM April 22, 2007 (CMT)
      • This was Weswammy's eleventh edit. —Cryptic 03:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:WEB. --McGeddon 09:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I just joined Tribal Wars as a player, and although I can see right away that there are a large number of players I don't see that as evidence of notability. On the other hand, Wikipedia is full of articles on computer games of all types, on musical instruments of all types, on motor vehicles of all types, on towns and streets and streams and ponds of all sizes. Only a fraction of these have notable external reference sites or publications. Where is the line drawn? Darcyj 07:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's drawn at WP:N - it just takes a long time to draw. --McGeddon 08:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per notability and web guidelines. Darcy, WP:FISHING is a good little essay for explaining why there are non-notable articles still on wikipedia. DarkSaber2k 09:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep There is a wider issue with these games, this whole category has been ripped to shreds in recent days, with about 40 odd being deleted, mainly because one guy just went through and added 'Speedy Delete' tags to them. I don't even play any of these games, but I am concerned about the implications of this category being destroyed. I think we need to protect minority interests here, external sources on such games are going to be hard to find, but then there are a billion 'who cares' bands on WP who don't seem to get deleted. I'm being serious now, when your deleting games like Ferion, Inselkampf and Cybernations with 10's of thousands of players, people are taking some policies too far. Bjrobinson 15:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Cryptic from another AfD: If a subject has no third party sources, which even its proponents do not dispute, then we cannot have an article on it. If no sources exist you can't just say 'Oh let it on anyway, 10,000 people play it.' DarkSaber2k 15:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. DarkSaber2k 15:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep and expand There are a lot of people on tribal wars, so this is quite an important subject, so we should keep it. But the article is not up to scratch. I am a member of Tribl Wars,

and with a subject like this, there is little point in citing scoures or references. Very few people write about these sites, so surely the users themselves are a reliable scource? As long as they are not biased, I cant see a problem. Lemming42 16:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing references and sources is EACTLY the point. If the article cannot provide sources, it cannot remain on wikipedia, Regardless of how many people play it, or create accounts to say keep in this discussion. Your complete ignorance of wikipedia polcies such as WP:RS is shown when you say 'Surely users are a reliable source'. I laughed out loud at this!DarkSaber2k 16:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DarkSaber2k, please dont WP:BITE our newcomers. This is a work in progress, and we need fresh people and idea's participating in our discussions and content creation in order to continue to grow. Bear in mind that reliable published sources are often incorrect too -- this especially applies to newspapers. Sources are of course desirable, but an unsourced article that is obviously not contentious is better than no article at all. The former can be fixed; the latter is by definition not able to benefit anyone. John Vandenberg 04:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lemming42, our policies and guidelines revolve around trying to keep the content hosted on Wikipedia within certain boundaries of accuracy and usefulness. A lot of junk is tossed onto the Wikipedia servers, and it takes a lot of work to keep the site clean. Take a look at Verifiability, No original research and Notability to gain a feeling of why this article is borderline. In essence, people are suggesting this article should be deleted because there are insufficient reliable published sources on the subject. Users and blogs are not considered reliable sources.

Personally, I think that if there are five independent blogs that assert the same fact about a game (and there is no contray opinion), I would have no problem saying, "Users of the game have said '<some random fact>' <ref> .. </ref><ref> .. </ref>...". That obviously makes it clear that the fact isnt reliable, but can help the astute reader come up to speed on the subject. John Vandenberg 04:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - The article needs work but should not be deleted It should be treated as a stub. I find myself concerned with a trend I see to delete articles in the MMORPG category. Some of these games have been around for years and have VERY large followings. I understand the reasonings behind the nominations, as MMORPGs are notoriously difficult to cite and source, there simply are not a lot of well-known sources in the MMORPG community, especially when it comes to browser-based games. The sourcing consists mostly of user-review sites and word of mouth. I think we should cut some of these games a little slack. If we don't, we will end up not having articles on some of the major games out there, and that would be a shame. This is a VERY notable game, almost everyone who plays these things has played it, or at least heard of it. The notability guidelines are just that: GUIDLINES, and should not be treated like strict rules. The word "guidline" implies adjustment, and we should be adjusting slightly to keep some of these articles. It should be taken into account that there are very few, if any, MMORPGs more notable than this one. Is it the plan to decimate the entire category?? This article is well written and covers a notable game. It should be kept. Matt Brennen 00:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability is not conferred by the number of players, but by third-party sources (i.e. articles) written about it. If it is such a "major game," it will have reviews on it, and this one distinctly lacks them. (Side note: that guidelines aren't mandatory does not mean you can ignore them without a good reason.) Phony Saint 00:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not determined by third party sources; reliable sources can prove notability, and is vital for V, NPOV and NOR, but in the end, notability cant be codified. We develop notability guidelines to help establish consensus, but we are not automations, and these guidelines are not meant to override common sense. Deleting material should not be done lightly; we should err on the side of caution where notability is borderline, because the article we see is a work in progress (and is the result of the hard work of other contributors). Here we have a websites+game that has been translated into seven languages, the game has been covered in four of our sister language pedia's (Dutch, French, Spanish and Turkish); a number of the other pedia's also have an article about the company that has the international license (e.g. es:Gameforge), they have significant infrastructure (worlds) to support many players (which has been verified by Wikipedians going into the game to verify), and the web has many references to the game in forums and the like. It would be extremely odd if this game was not suitable for inclusion in the English Wikipedia. With half an hour and a bit of help from Google Translate, I was able to find a review in Polish that appears substantial. I am sure that others also exist, but command of other languages may be required to find them. John Vandenberg 04:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you provide this source? --Wafulz 12:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • [1] (on the bottom of the article :-) ) fingers crossed. John Vandenberg 13:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I will repeat what i said in Inselkampf: There is a wider issue with these games, this whole category has been ripped to shreds in recent days, with about 40 odd (half of the articles) being deleted, mainly because one guy just went through and added 'Speedy Delete' tags to them. I don't even play any of these games, but I am concerned about the implications of this category being destroyed. I think we need to protect minority interests here, external sources on such games are going to be hard to find, but then there are a billion 'who cares' bands on WP who don't seem to get deleted. I'm being serious now, when your deleting games like Ferion, Inselkampf and Cybernations with 10's of thousands of players, people are taking some policies too far.

To quote Brennen in the Inselkampf debate: I totally agree except that we are not talking about policy we are talking about a guideline. I think we should all keep that in mind. The reason it's a guidline is to leave room for us to use our better judgment. I don't thing destroying an entire category is an example of good judgement. Each one of those speedy deletes should be up for review, IMHO. Matt Brennen 00:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC). - Bjrobinson 09:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bjrobinson, you are aware you have 'voted' (for lack of a more accurate word) twice in this AfD now? DarkSaber2k 14:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using a policy is not "taking it too far". verifiability and no original research have always been core policies for every article. I don't see why exceptions should be made for online video games. --Wafulz 12:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, WP:V and WP:NOR do not present a problem as this article doesnt contain facts that cant be attributed to primary sources, blogs and gaming directory entries. However the list of European online games in Wikipedia is being gutted because people are requiring RS, they want them in English, and they want them now. (see the comment above by "DarkSaber2k 15:12, 23 April 2007"). John Vandenberg 13:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs and gaming directory entries? Try reading WP:V#Sources of questionable reliability and WP:ORG#Primary criterion. We aren't questioning whether the game exists or not, we are questioning whether it is notable or not. Out of the sources shown, only one is not a blog/fansite, a trivial directory entry, or from the game site. Even the one that isn't, the Polish article, looks to be nothing more than a rehash of what the game is, not a review. Phony Saint 14:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"a rehash of what the game is" is all that we need it to be. It says two things: 1) someone bothered to write about it in a media that is read by a large number of people, and 2) the facts we provide in our article have been said by others first! "notability" doesnt equate with "memorable". Notability is just a guideline; do you think that Wikipedia is better off without this article? If so, please explain your position using your own words. John Vandenberg 23:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it's the job of the keepers to explain their position, not mine. As per the policy WP:Verifiability#Burden of evidence:

“

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. ... If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

”

"A rehash of what the game is" in MMOG directories, which contain hundreds of MMOGs and do little more than repeat the game's description, is trivial (and possibly non-independent) coverage. That notability is "just a guideline" does not mean you can blow it off completely just to have an article on a nonnotable game. Phony Saint 23:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The polish article is not a directory listing.

I have already explained in my own words why this article should be kept; why wont you follow suit? I am not blowing off notability; my point is the notability is not codified in the guidelines, which is why they are called guidelines rather than policies. Specifically issues to consider, 1) the existence of an article in wikipedia's for regions that are more familiar with this subject (indicating that our notability criteria are excluding it due to systematic bias), and 2) the existence of plenty of discussion on the subject on the Internet (indicating that our notability criteria is not gauging the notability adequately).

So far you are voting to delete every Afd you have commented on; take a moment to consider how many of the manga/anime articles you normally edit are up to scratch right now? How would you respond if five or six of the less developed articles in one genre were nominated for deletion all at once? I for one would be in there doing my best to demonstrate that those articles should be kept because Wikipedia is a work in progress, and we should by default assume good faith in the contributions of others, as that is what has made Wikipedia grow to be a top 10 website. In conclusions, marginal articles should by default be kept, as they build the web. John Vandenberg 00:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I (or others, including yourself) choose to edit elsewhere isn't relevant to this AfD. The others and I made our arguments based on the article, not its contributors or the subject itself, and so far nobody has come up with a better counter-argument than "many people play it." I'm not going to have a pointless debate with you about what guidelines are and the selective use of them. Phony Saint 00:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article seems very fine to me. Descriptive and to the point. I inserted the last two remaining needed references (the facts are shows at the game's homepage). I don't know why this is marked for deletion. Some of the "reference needed" tags were a bit dubius, to say the least, and look like done by someone who thinks that references are needed for the obvious (imagine this: "Cars consume fuel[reference needed]." I'll just say LOL. Nikos 14:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have seen several of these web based online games going up for AfD lately. Unfortunately they are indeed more difficult to prove nobility without suggesting big numbers and such. But sometimes in an AfD common sense needs to be used more then WP guidelines. In the case of htis, and the other text games being deleted recently, I think the sheer numbers of people playing them do in this case establish nobility. Web only MMOGs as far as I can tell (didnt know much about them before these AfDs) are a reletively new genre, so gaming magazines and such may be less likely to pick up on them as of yet, but that does not make them unnotable per say, it just makes notability hard to prove using the established guidelines. Russeasby 22:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Applying a small amount of common sense to the notability guidline make Tribal Wars indeed very notable. It is a fairly new game and thus not much cited outside the gaming community. Still it has a large and active player base with plenty of fan-developed content. The sheer number of players and size of community do warrant notability, defined as "worthy of being noted or attracting notice" in the guidline. That said, I came here looking for the Wikipedia entry on Tribal Wars and would be very much surprised if there was no such article. Mattias Kling 10:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. At the current state i dont even "see" an article. Where's the content?? Nothing to say about the game? How is it then notable? Look at Starships! to get an idea of what I'm talking about. --Echosmoke 10:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current discussion concerns the notability of the game. The articles quality is in no way related to the topics notability. You are correct that the current state of the article is not up to standards, but to quote the WP:Deletion policy, "Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion". Mattias Kling 11:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, however the contention here is that the article cannot be improved due to no sources being available. Beyond one polish re-hash of a press release, no-one has been able to provide a single source to satisfy any improvement criteria that would make the article keep-able. Best case scenario for keeping this article at the moment: 8 months down the line the article hasn't improved one iota, it gets nominated for deletion again, and the usual suspects come out saying 'We should ignore the fact there are (still) no sources for this to establish notability because even more people play it now and I play it, so I know it's notable.' DarkSaber2k 11:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Respectfully, I see no consensus to delete the artical at all. It needs some work but wiki policy (as opposed to notability guidlines) state that in these cases we should tag the article and move on. If we deleted every wiki article with questionable notability, there would be nothing left but FAs and GAs, so let tag it and be finished with this. Theres no consensus anyway (at least that I can see). Matt Brennen 01:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:DP#Reasons for deletion also states that a valid reason for deletion is "Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline." This article fails to meet any relevant notability guideline - neither WP:N, WP:CORP, nor WP:WEB. Additionally, consensus is determined not by numbers alone, but by arguments: "These processes are not decided through a head count, so people are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy." Phony Saint 03:36, 27 April 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.