Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PlaneShift (video game): Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 84: Line 84:


::Is there anything anywhere about being notable by mass minor notability rather then one major notable post? Sure someone could be paid to write an article on planeshift but would that make it more notable? PS: I did a thesis on it, does that count if its online? Personally I think that its not acceptable to use your own writing as a source.--[[Special:Contributions/76.90.200.238|76.90.200.238]] ([[User talk:76.90.200.238|talk]]) 05:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
::Is there anything anywhere about being notable by mass minor notability rather then one major notable post? Sure someone could be paid to write an article on planeshift but would that make it more notable? PS: I did a thesis on it, does that count if its online? Personally I think that its not acceptable to use your own writing as a source.--[[Special:Contributions/76.90.200.238|76.90.200.238]] ([[User talk:76.90.200.238|talk]]) 05:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

*'''Keep'''. I think PlaneShift is a very important Open Source MMORPG game. As far as I know there is no other OSS MMORPG game of this size in existance. Perhaps this alone does not qualify as inclusion in wikipedia but then I wonder why articles about similar (but less advanced) projects as WorldForge are not considered for deletion then? [[User:JorritTyb|JorritTyb]] ([[User talk:JorritTyb|talk]]) 11:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:05, 1 April 2010

PlaneShift (video game)

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

Game has been in development since 2004, but is still in alpha stage. Few, if any, secondary sources and much of the editing to this article has been done by one or more of the game's developers. I am particularly interested in this game genre, especially since it is available for OS X, but had never heard of this game until I came across an unblock request for one of the editors, so I don't think it meets the standards of notability. —DoRD (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Article lacks any real sources. Previous AfD was keep and no concensus several years ago on the grounds that it would be properly sourced. Article hasn't changed any since then and is only having more trivial information added by creator of the game. No real player base or signs of notability. SpigotMap 13:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia clearly has an anti-PlaneShift bias for some reason I just can't fathom. This is a very important project, the only open source MMO of any repute, and it has over 500,000 players worldwide. You're telling me that's not notable? Ever hear of a little magazine called PC Gamer? They sure seem to think PlaneShift is notable. The German edition of PC Gamer anyway. In conclusion, this AFD is a clear violation of WP:NPOV, WP:LIBEL, and WP:NPA. Keep your hands off my Planeshift, Wikipedia! Lucap1978 (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying PlaneShift has or has had 500,000 players is an outright misleading lie. It simply has had that many accounts created. That in no way equates to number of actual players or even game downloads, as seen in my comment below. Poehappy (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The previous AfD referred to above is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PlaneShift (computer game). It did indeed conclude with "no consensus". Much of the discussion there was argument about what Wikipedia's policies and guidelines say, rather than about whether this article had reliable sources. If I wade through all that to look at the relevant parts of the discussion, I find that the "keep" arguments are to a large extent based on "I know that there are reliable sources" without indicating what they are. When links to "sources" were provided they were mostly to trivial mentions, unreliable sources, or sources not independent of the subject, and often to sources failing by all three of these criteria. One of the sources given was to an online copy of an advertising poster for the game! (I kid you not.) I think that rather than "no consensus" the conclusion should have been "among those actually arguing in accordance with Wikipedia policy there is consensus for deletion". However, I sympathise with the administrator who worked through the great text wall in that discussion, and I do not criticise him/her for their decision, as it is very difficult to see the overall picture in such a mass. I think, in fact, that the whole situation was well summarised by Vassyana in the comment All sources provided that I have seen are trivial mentions and user-submitted articles & reviews. ... Despite the vigorous efforts to dig up sources, not a single non-trivial reference with appropriate editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking has been provided. Despite the vigorous endorsement of a fanbase, there seems to be little to no real-world notability for the project. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The situation has not progressed from how it was when the last AfD took place, as described above. The sources cited in the article are almost not independent, some of them are unreliable (blog post etc) and some are trivial mentions. No evidence at all of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree, a list of new sources have been added in the last week, including international collaborations. Lot more can be found on the net. --Xyz231 (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then i would say: WP:SOFIXIT. If there are plenty of reliable sources it would be no problem at all to add them to the article right? Even so, most sources added last week are trivial mentions or primary sources. That is - for me - the entire issue with this article. There are mentions here and there, but nothing really substantional. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 15:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I see there is some coverage on gaming websites, including a few news article's, and i don't doubt the 500.000 player claim which indicates this is at least more then a kitchen project. However, searches don't come up with anything that i would normally accept as a reliable source. For something in development 6 years already it received quite little press coverage. It would seem to be notable enough, but it lacks verifiability. Ill remain neutral for now, as i simply cannot decide if the amount of trivial coverage, awards and game size outweigh the lack of any "Real" references. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 14:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's not fall for WP:BIG. From what I see, 500,000 is the alleged number of all registered accounts. The number of actual players is probably less than one-tenth of that. According to the official website, the game only has hundreds of active players[1]. — Rankiri (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The game has hundreds of concurrent players, which is a lot different than the total audience. PlaneShift has a turnover of players in one day of several hundreds. --Xyz231 (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point is that notability isn't determined by something's quantity of members, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources. — Rankiri (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Sigh*. No, the "500.000 users" part was not a part of my "neutral" vote, but used to state the project is at least not made up or so minor that no one ever heard from it. Even so, i keep my vote at neutral. The article had reliable coverage independent of the subject and a claim to notability, but the "Significant" part is lacking here. As said there is some coverage on gaming websites, but most of those seem similar to press releases. There are quite a few mentions of the game in reliable sources, some not even gaming related, but i cannot seem to find any source that is more then a mention. In other words: Neutral. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 15:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To give a bit of reference on this '500,000' number, this is a result of a server query on February 11, 2007
Total PS accounts: 340,000+
Accounts never used: 112114
Total characters used less than an hour : 141557 (four characters can be made per account)
Total characters active more than ten hours: 9416
Accounts active in the last 30 days: 14787
Accounts created in the last 30 days: 18103
Accounts created in the last 30 days never used: 7614
Active accounts older than 30 days: 4297
Accounts active in the last week: 3632
Active accounts in the last day: 1021
I hope that brings things into perspective. If you want more current data, you can ask the developers to do another query. Note that the above figures include people who register more than one account (some very active players register 10 or more), accounts that never got an email activation and the user made another, accounts that were created without ever downloading the game (or downloaded and failed to run), people trying the game, leaving, then coming back to check it out and forgetting their old passwords, as well as a number of other factors that inflate the number of accounts far beyond the number of actual people who have tried the game. Poehappy (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your data is not sourced, and so not reliable. Anyway if that data was true, it shows a turnover of 3632 players in one week and 1021 in one day, which is surely more than needed to say it has lot of players. --Xyz231 (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, and btw This template must be substituted.
  • Keep. PlaneShift has been a major influence to all free games in existance today, being one of the first to start the "free" genre, it has changed the life of hundreds of people, who contributed to the development and to the creation of a free virtual life world. It is today one of the very few, if not the only open source mmorpg engine with all needed features to make a real game. In additions there has been plenty of notable collaborations, and mentions which are in the page. Just search for PlaneShift on google, and you will find hundreds of sites where you can download the game. It has been reviewing in every single mmorpg web site, and in most magazines. If you are going to delete this article you will have to delete half of the articles present in wikipedia. --Xyz231 (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
Those are not valid arguments? That's ridiculous, I'm out of here. You make this place a mess. Do whatever you want with the article. --Xyz231 (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the links that explain the problems with those arguments? At any rate, I am INTENSELY skeptical that this is among the first free games ever released. Or that "free" is a "genre". - Vianello (Talk) 03:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The majority of these sources, even though published by reliable sources, are contributed by the PlaneShift creator and/or PlaneShift developers, making them still primary sources. SpigotMap 15:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's your evidence of those claims? Why you challenges independent studies and other web sites? If that's not valid, then nothing is. --Xyz231 (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because many of them are not published by the staff of the magazine/game site/whatever. They are sites where anyone can submit a review. Just because they are on a notable site doesn't make them reliable sources. SpigotMap 15:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WoW 90+% of those are released by blizzard, reviews on game sites or whatnot. I say we request that WOW gets removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.32.39.251 (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was really excited when I heard about Planeshift, several years ago, but I was under the impression that the project was dead. All the sources being cited here (other than blogs and the primary source) are out-dated. If the notability was in question back then... Are there any new articles done on Planeshift? Spacexplosion (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few new ones including http://www.windows7download.com/win7-planeshift/cnztmxui.html for example --70.32.39.251 (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see where the article is in that source. Please point it out, all I see is a release and game description. SpigotMap 16:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It shows the current release, the date for the release, as gives a brief description. Also considering its a forums for windows 7 doesn't that show that its current? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.32.39.251 (talk)
It does do that, but it does not qualify as a reliable source and does not assert any notability. Thanks for the clarification. SpigotMap 16:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm in agreement with JamesBWatson. The last AfD was concluded with a keep only with the expectation that more sources would follow. There have been no new articles added that are not: trivial mentions, blog/forum posts, or download mirrors with a copy-paste description. Spacexplosion (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No edits except this page — Spacexplosion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Xyz231 (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Before I vote, I have a question. The article references what appears to be three independent reliable sources: one in Linux Format, another one in TUX Magazine, and one more in Spanish Linux Magazine. Why the nomination then? MagV (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because some people got banned for flaming Planeshift so they go around and flame everywhere else -note: apparently this is derogatory? Id be more then happy to prove what was said here. --70.32.39.251 (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Asking users to clean up the page and add sources is Meat Puppetting? Seems more like asking people to fix a problem. If sources are cleaned up then there seems no reason to delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.32.39.251 (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You gave a link to this AfD and asked users to "Join the Fight". You didn't say "Hey let's add sources to the article and improve its quality." SpigotMap 17:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That one line was removed happy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.32.39.251 (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I personally confirmed that the TUX magazine has significant coverage of the subject. I don't have a direct link to the article but you can take a look at its text here. The review by Linux Magazine Spain ([2](translation)) appears to be acceptable. There is also this overly excited review on about.com but it's not clear whether it can be considered a reliable source (e.g., see RSN/Archive27). The rest of the links on PlaneShift (video game) and WP:Articles for deletion/PlaneShift (computer game) don't show significant coverage of the subject by independent reliable sources. According to the Linux Format's admin, their coverage of the subject was fairly limited[3]. — Rankiri (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe that there are a sufficient number of reliable third-party sources to demonstrate notability, although I'd agree that the present state of the article is disappointing. The list may not be exhaustive:
  • Brief review at GameDev.net, which is a reliable industry insider, alongside Gamasutra.
  • GamersHell has news articles, screenshots, etc.
  • StrategyInformer has details, screenshots, etc.
  • GameSpot has details, screenshots, etc.
  • MMORPG.com may be considered unreliable by some: open to debate. Contains some information.
  • GiantBomb provides some information.
  • mmo5.com may be considered unreliable by some: open to debate. Contains some information.
Going by the above, the two votes for deletion concern the sources cited within the article. Granted, the references are almost entirely derived from the subject's own website, but since there are reliable third-party sources that have not been included, I think the article should be kept and improved rather than deleted.  Mephistophelian † 17:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of these are WP:RS sources with significant coverage. Gamedev's coverage is very superficial; GiantBomb's page is fully editable; and the rest of the sites only provide basic listing descriptions like "PlaneShift is a free 3D MMORPG, and features 12 different races, AI controlled NPCs, and an evolving world". — Rankiri (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Out of the above sources, only the first looks to be written by an editor, the rest look like press releases and are on sites where anyone can press the "add game" button and submit a game. SpigotMap 17:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Significant coverage" according to wikipedia "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." It is one fourth of the article, sure it is not as long as the others, however it is a main topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.32.39.251 (talk)
here is another good one http://www.warcry.com/news/view/58063-Free-MMOG-Planeshift-breaks-100k-Players--70.32.39.251 (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As pointed out by others, the sources at linux-magazine.es, Warcry Network, gamedev.net and gamespot appear to be sufficient to establish notability. The awards won, according to the article, also establish notability.-gadfium 20:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything anywhere about being notable by mass minor notability rather then one major notable post? Sure someone could be paid to write an article on planeshift but would that make it more notable? PS: I did a thesis on it, does that count if its online? Personally I think that its not acceptable to use your own writing as a source.--76.90.200.238 (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think PlaneShift is a very important Open Source MMORPG game. As far as I know there is no other OSS MMORPG game of this size in existance. Perhaps this alone does not qualify as inclusion in wikipedia but then I wonder why articles about similar (but less advanced) projects as WorldForge are not considered for deletion then? JorritTyb (talk) 11:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PlaneShift_(video_game)&oldid=353328994"