Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cantr

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. however unique it is, we can't write an encyclopedia article on it when we don't have reliable sources ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cantr

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

Does not appear to be a notable online game; a search found only web forums and other unreliable websites. The game seems (or seemed?) to have been popular in the past (as I mentioned previously, it is frequently discussed on web forums), so I'm not nominating this for speedy deletion; however, the game lacks coverage in reliable sources, from what I have seen. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been removed a few times actually, however I'm hoping the Wikipedia community can hear out a few factors. The game is totally free - there are no purchases possible. Unlike other games in this day and age, where there's always a hidden purchase somewhere, or even an advert, this game has none of that. It's truly a community game, and as a result of money not being a motivating factor, it's existed for over 16 years. It shares the community, ethos and spirit of Wikipedia itself in a lot of ways - except the content being produced is fictional. That's the second point I'd like to make - this is a wonderfully unique and interesting game whereby it simulates societies like no other game I've ever come across. It has an eclectic mix of player types - from people learning a language, to people who like roleplay, to students wanting to improve their linguistic skills, to those who want to participate in simulating a society, to those who just want to play a text based game, and so much more. We feel that a Wikipedia presence would give us a pivotal legitimacy. We're not going to make any money from a Wikipedia listing, and we're not going to hide any facts or try to make it into an advert. We just want a place to share interesting facts (which we will source and provide) as the society evolves. We want to share our learnings in a reputable, safe place so that future readers can learn and read about a one-of-a-kind adventure that is yet to be repeated.

I'm pleading with the Wikipedia community to consider allowing this article in light of those points. I will personally take on responsibility for ensuring the article is very well sourced, and in time, begins giving back by sharing really interesting data and learnings that were generated from the game. In this way I hope I can bring value to Wikipedia. Lassaris (talk) 08:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read Wikipedia:Subjective importance, specifically the section "Age". Also, you may want to read Wikipedia:Alternative outlets, which points to other websites which could be a more accepting place to share your information. I'm sorry it has to be this way, but in my opinion, to cut a long story short, the article simply does not meet our inclusion guidelines. However, given that this is an AfD discussion, there will be seven (or more) days for others to make a consensus on the fate of the article, and it's still possible that the article will be kept if other users make valid arguments as to why the article should be kept. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And it looks like it deleted at AFD a decade ago too. If nothing has changed in the way of third parties writing articles about it, the odds aren't looking good - things were much more lenient in the 2000s, so if it couldn't survive then, I don't know how it would now. It needs to meet the WP:GNG - basically, having reliable sources write about the subject in signicant detail. I personally didn't find anything like that in my quick initial search... Sergecross73 msg me 17:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We can discuss this at length, but simply put, it is not notable. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Was not able to find any evidence that it meets the WP:GNG. Would be happy to reconsider if further reliable sources were found. Sergecross73 msg me 16:05, 1 February 2017 (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.