Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rappelz

Rappelz

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Available sources limited to press releases and unreliable websites (WP:RS), therefore does not appear to pass notability threshold for inclusion (WP:N) Marasmusine (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Marasmusine (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. The subject is not noted in any newsworthy article I could find. --Sbluen (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - I was hopeful when running a reliable sources search, but all the results were trailers, press releases (self-published), or forums. --Teancum (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Note I'm sorry but how can you say unreliable sources if the sources mentioned are the actual multi-language multiple official sites? Any OTHER source would be unreliable, not these! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.24.69.235 (talk) 07:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Note The subject of the article is a well-known MMORPG with notable publishers in several different territories that has received significant coverage in various media. Can you list some sources you consider reliable on the topic of video games? 78.131.80.59 (talk) 08:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

  Sure, there's a list at WP:VG/RS. Can you show us the significant coverage that you've found? Marasmusine (talk) 10:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

  There is a distinct lack of MMO-related web sites in the list, and in the checklist below it, nearly all MMO sites are marked as unreliable. When checking a couple of links provided as rationale for them being marked as such, it appears that nearly all of them have been deemed unreliable by you personally. You should understand that you cannot meaningfully apply the same standards of journalism here as you would expect from CNN or The Times. See WP:VNT. While I agree with your evaluation of these sites, we have to make do with them simply because there is no better alternative in the genre. 78.131.80.59 (talk) 12:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Improve First of all I have to say that I appreciate your work very much. However there are a view remarks I want to make. As far as I can see the review was merely focused on the references, rather than the content of the article itself. I also have the impression that the review process itself has done not accurately enough. The deletion policy (Deletion policy) clearly states that you should prefer improving an article over deletion.

“If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem.”

A comprehensive research for references is not only a quick search via google but also covers a wide variety of different sources ranging from printed papers up to audio, video, and multimedia materials. Just by recall the past I remember for example that the satellite television channel NBC Europe NBC Europe did have quite a lot of reportages and interviews about Rappelz in their program NBC GIGA Games [1]. Some of them are available to watch in you tube [2][3]. I am pretty sure it is possible to get those reportages from NBC archive. Also a search at their web page reveals several articles about Rappelz [4]. All of those would be suited to full fill the criteria of being a reliable source, as can be seen in the article "Identifying reliable sources" (WP:RS) under the topic of "News organizations" and the following. This could be a source of improving the general quality of the content whole article. In generally you should not expect to find a lot of reliable sources in the field of massively multiplayer online role-playing game since there is still a lack in science to cover up those. However as the growing numbers of publications, e.g. a search at science with the keywords “world of warcraft” [5] reveals, they are catching up fast. Another good resource for getting hard data and a reliable source for improving the quality of Rappelz would be a research in the field of economics, since here is the link between the virtual world and real world. However one should not fall in the trap to think those so called reliable source are the only existing truth existing.

So my suggestion is in a first step improve the reviewing process of the rappels article. I also suggest reviewing not only its sources but also its content. In a second step I suggest to improve the overall content of the article, rather then deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.160.171.192 (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note Another reason for notability is that Rappelz was the first MMO to be localized for the Middle East/North African market. This fact alone has been covered by practically all MMO-related web sites and even some news sources outside the genre. 78.131.80.59 (talk) 10:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - Thanks, I think GIGA Games is fine as a source [6] as it is owned by Fox Interactive Media. I always make an effort to improve an article before nominating it. Two months ago I looked for sources and couldn't locate any, so tagged the article with notability concerns. It's a shame you didn't read the article during that period. I'll leave the nomination open, to allow others to judge if a single sources is sufficient. Marasmusine (talk) 13:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)