Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PlaneShift (computer game)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Jonesey95 (talk | contribs) at 07:10, 7 December 2023 (Fix Linter errors. More needed. Leaving obsolete tags for bots.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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. --Coredesat 06:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PlaneShift (computer game)

[edit]
PlaneShift (computer game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Article contains no establishment of notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. A quick google search showed no reliable sources, reviews, mentions, awards from any reputable sources. Article exists merely on primary sources alone and is written like an advertisement SpigotMap 11:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: If PlaneShift is not considered notable then similar projects like Arianne should also be considered not notable. They are in the same league. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.58.179.18 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: I believe it is more notable than you think. Can't say for sure, but i heard of it numerous times eventhough i am not interested in a game like that. Also, i remember it, as it used to be the most seeded, and stil is one of the most seeded torrents on miniNova. Quick look on google didn't bring up many too reliable sources either, but the coverage still seems to be pretty wide. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 12:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable freeware game not even out of "pre alpha". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As far as I can tell, the game itself is in beta, not pre-alpha. There seems to be a difference in status between PlaneShift-the-game and PlaneShift-the-engine, the latter of which is on SourceForge and is listed as pre-alpha. Tuxide 20:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe, but that's not what the article says: "The game is currently in the pre-alpha stage of development, at version 0.3" and their own website seems to confirm this: "At the present state of development, PlaneShift is not a complete game, but what we call a "tech demo"" A tech demo is indeed a pre-alpha release (some might even call it pre-pre-alpha. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No notability, is only free in cost, and only currently. Proprietary game built upon open source engine without a production release (ever). This game has been in-development for 6years. If the game was more open, as in the licensing for the game, I might object because it would stand out. Currently, it just appears to be be another slow-development/vaporware piece of proprietary junk - thus the lack of media coverage. EvanCarroll 16:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question to EvanCarroll If you claim it's non-notable and unverifiable, then how do you know so damn much about it? This sounds like a WP:COI here. Tuxide 21:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer to Tuxide Everything I know is not subject to its own encyclopedia article. Thanks to the pokemon articles of the past, I know a lot of stuff that no longer qualifies for wikipedia. I know about Planeshift because I'm outraged at their marketing which exploits the synergy openness delivers for selfish gains. No one cares about a free as in beer proprietary game, that's been done before. Many care about a free as in freedom game - myself included. What I hate is they currently deliver on the free as in beer, and touch on the free as in freedom, but the game is not free! It is only free enough to confuse people. EvanCarroll 03:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Every game with a fans base has a page on wikipedia in which they explain how the game works and give detail on setting, races, monsters, etc... Why PlaneShift shouldn't ? The PlaneShift page seems setup like all the other pages I see of other games, those do not contain more notable sources than PlaneShift. Also this means you want to have in the wikipedia only the very known, mass-driving titles? It's an encyclopedia made by people for the people, deleting knowledge is the worst you can do on a free enyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.17.172.185 (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just removed the follwoing from the article page, which I think was probably intended for here:
I can't understand why someone here wants to say PlaneShift do not exist. Here are some notable sources on the existance of PlaneShift:
http://linux.about.com/od/softgame/fr/fr_PlaneShift.htm
http://www.jeuvinux.net/article-51.html
http://news.mmosite.com/interview/content/2007-10-07/20071007223114402,1.shtml
http://www.psde.de/foren/offizielles/ank_ndigungen_und_neuigkeiten/interview_bersetzung
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/planeshift/review.html
and stats on characters and accounts registered per hour:
http://laanx.fragnetics.com/charsweek.png
Artw 20:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and improve article): I am not playing this type of game, but I followed the development of Crystal Space for several years. IMHO this is one of the most important open source/free software projects in this category (and the most important project in Crystal Space). When judging the status of the game ("alpha", "beta" etc.) one should keep in mind that free software tends to have much lower release numbers and a beta version might be more stable and playable than comparable proprietary software releases which are declared stable. Judging from the development progress I have seen in the last years I certainly do not agree with statements like "it just appears to be be another slow-development/vaporware piece of proprietary junk" (by the way: why proprietary? from the webpage: "All source code of the engine is Open Source and under GPL."). -- mkrohn 23:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then mkrohn you have no idea what you're talking about because nothing about the game is free! The engine it is built on is free and that does less good, and makes the game less open than Simcity 2000 which had a map builder. The game is not open source. Even on their own license they state that verbatim. In fact giving back to the "game" means your property (ruleset/art/dialog) will have its ownership transfered entirely to "Atomic Blue" and you *can not* even retain a copy for your own use. This is my biggest problem with this nonsense project. In other words, if you draw up a gnome and write the dialog for it you can not give a copy to Atomic Blue, and your best friend. You can not modify or redistribute your own work. You can not fork the game. You have no options outside of what Atomic Blue explicitly permits you to do, because the license is authoritarian. EvanCarroll 16:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • you get portfolio rights, and the license is no different then one that you would sign off on at any other serious art/development/writing house. only difference here is that you get to see it. it is called "work for hire" license/contract.64.230.31.250 01:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)steuben[reply]
      • Question to EvanCarroll If you claim it's non-notable, then how do you know so damn much about it? This sounds like a WP:COI here. Moved my comment to your post above. Tuxide 21:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "you have no idea what you're talking about because nothing about the game is free! [...] The game is not open source." - the game engine certainly is open source (just browse their csv, e.g.: [2]). AFAIK there is even a project underway to use free graphics etc. instead of their proprietary stuff. -- mkrohn 21:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So f***ing what? Simcity 3000 can run on Linux under wine. Does that make Simcity 3000 open source? I'll grant a small but crucial element to the game, the client/server codebase is open source. The Quake 3 engine is also open source, but the *game* is not, and will never be. A new open game created on this engine might be more noteworthy but as it stands now Planeshift is not. You must see this difference to understand the evil behind this company, you're inability to distinguish the difference between Planeshift and the client/server codebase is saddening. discussion n this matter. This is why I argue so vehemently, however to submit to wikipedia guidelines, the problem here is notability. Nothing about the "game" is notable other than the fact it has a brochure on wikipedia. EvanCarroll 03:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • So in other words, what you're saying is WP:IDONTLIKEIT because Peragro Tempus will be like PlaneShift but with a different license agreement, yet it doesn't have its own article. Even I've heard of Peragro Tempus, and I wish them the best of luck, but using this as a basis for AFD is quite silly. Tuxide 05:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not saying that an open mmorpg is by necessity notable, but it sure does increase the odds. Planeshift is not notable because there are no reliable sources on it: I believe this is because it is not open. Which is also the reason why I don't like it. Don't confuse the two. Does that mean anything open is notable, no there are some worthless open projects, but a project that is open and free fits my ideal of good; and, I'd say that vastly increases its notability. EvanCarroll 16:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Slashdot has two stories related to planeshift: Free 3D MMORPG Planeshift Ported To Mac OS X, Planeshift Enters Open Testing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco Krohn (talk • contribs) 00:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable. The links provided above are not from reliable sources, or are trivial coverage (in Gamespot's case). Only the MMOSite link has some merit, but a single source is not enough, especially if the coverage is not directly related to the article subject. User:Krator (t c) 00:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Explain how [3] is not directly related to the article subject please. Tuxide 00:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's directly related, but even if mmosite.com proves to be a reliable source, about which there is some doubt, more than one such reliable source is needed. Miremare 01:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • My question is more on notability: If sources like these can be found, whether notability can be established. Another thing is that in the gaming industry, you don't ever see open source projects being stuck in the same boat as commercial games such as Flyff, Silkroad Online, Ragnarok Online 2, etc. but for some reason PlaneShift is the odd one out. Hence this is why I am sticking with WP:RUBBISH. Within good faith I do believe PlaneShift is notable—it is clearly known outside of just a narrow interest group—and reliable sources just need to be found. I can go out and find reliable sources if I really wanted to, but real life is keeping me from doing so right now. Tuxide 03:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete gamespot looked promising until their coverage proved to be entirely player reviews. Other than that, just fansites and gameguides. Not notable. Miremare 01:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Changed !vote due to magazine sources. Miremare 23:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concede that Verifiability is an issue but this should not lead to the deletion of the article ... -- mkrohn 10:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thus, I back up my claim that the coverage is out there. You can make up your own mind which are relevant, but clearly, claiming that there isn't any coverage out there on this topic is utter bullshit. As I said above, PlaneShift isn't put in the same boat as libre games like Tux Racer, but with commercial products. Tuxide 08:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again, Gamespot DOES NOT have coverage of planeshift. The only plausible coverage of Planeshift in that list might be warcry, but it's a load of shit, normal Luca lying about the project. Furthermore, a download link on a website which... provides downloads, does not really make something notable. The magazine articles would need to be verified if they were written by the magazines or sent in by Planeshift, because they look like in some kind of "Fan mail" section. SpigotMap 11:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Apepars to be notable based on all this cited coverage. • Lawrence Cohen 21:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is not subjective or temporary. The game has clearly been the subject of multiple non-trivial sources as Tuxide has shown, regardless of its phase of development. Therefore: Notable. Arakunem 22:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep. Weakening my Keep a bit. Got one strong source shown here, and several minimal (bordering on trivial) sources. WP:N states that in the event sources are not so strong, that more of them are required. I guess the question here is what's the cutoff for Multiple + Non-Trivial. I still think the breadth of coverage warrants a keep at this time. Arakunem 23:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, after spending a good 45 minutes on just this AfD, I'm strengthening my Keep back up. So far I see 2 Warcry stories of substance, spaced several months apart, 2 MMOSite stories of substance, also well spaced apart, 2 Slashdot articles of "decent blurb" size, also months apart, and a boatload of blurbs, snippets, bytes, and blogs about this game. I think the basic guideline of "Multiple, non-trivial, unrelated sources" has been met here, both in letter and in spirit. Once again, Notability is not subjective. Arakunem 23:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All sources provided that I have seen are trivial mentions and user-submitted articles & reviews. Additionally, there seems to be a large claim of inherited notability, in that since the engine (Crystal Space) is notable, the game is notable. However, they are two distinct animals. 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. This seems to be a pretty plain case of a non-notable subject. Vassyana 23:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Let's look at these sources one at a time:
    • PC Gamer: one paragraph, not significant coverage.
    • Massive Online Gaming: not even prose this time, just a list of system requirements, release dates, etc. Not significant coverage.
    • First Warcry Network source: An interview with the creator of the game, discussing the game. The best of the bunch.
    • Second Warcry Network source: An article about Planeshift reaching 100,000 registered accounts.
    • First Escapistmagazine.com source: An interview that mentions Planeshift once. Not significant coverage.
    • Second Escapistmagazine.com source: A very short article about something else in which Planeshift is mentioned once. Not significant coverage.
    • Gamespot.com: as mentioned above, Gamespot's coverage of Planeshift comprises player reviews and a single mention in a news piece about something else.
    • Of the sources just above those ones, the dubious reliability of mmosite has been entered into somewhere up the page, and the two slashdot articles are, again, trivial. Significant coverage can't be given with two sentences, or even one paragraph talking about how the game's available for download. And the chip.de one is a download site.
The only ones that come close here are from Warcry Network - the rest are insignificant coverage. What we're left with is two articles from a single source. Makes me wonder, if Planeshift is notable and as "groundbreaking" as Warcry Network seems to believe, why is no one else covering it, and why is this the total coverage it's received in over half a decade of existence? Multiple reliable sources are needed to prove notability, and we still don't have evidence of that, so I'm sticking with "delete". Miremare 00:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not only what Miremare said, but also the fact that the article itself does not only need citations of notability, but citations for the entire article. You can't use one source to cite the entire article, unless everything in the article is said in the source. SpigotMap 00:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As for the two MMOSite articles, one is a one-(full) pager from 2006, the other a 3 pager from 2007. Both are interviews with the game's director, by definition a First-hand source. Unless it is claimed that the interview was fraudulent (nobody here has said this, btw), then as long as the facts of that interview are valid, doesnt that make the articles reliable sources? As for Spigot's comment on placement of the citations, you are correct. But if you acknowledge that the citations given elsewhere are valid, then it's a simple matter of editing the article. Lets follow the spirit of the law as well as the letter. Arakunem 00:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't bring the site into question, though I have to say it does seem a bit forum-y to me and doesn't even say who is conducting that rather fawning interview. It could just be a press release from the developers for all we know - it certainly reads like one. I would also question the reliability and motivations of sites that interview people (twice!) about their games but give the games themselves no actual coverage - why would two sites twice interview someone about a game they obviously don't care enough about to feature in any way? That just seems a little bit suspicious if you ask me. The fact that these frankly minor sites are the only ones dedicating any kind of coverage (no matter how indirect) to Planeshift - especially given the claims to notability the game makes - speaks volumes of non-notability to me. I mean, these sources are hardly Reuters and the BBC, are they? In this day and age, a significant computer game gets a hell of a lot of coverage on the net. This one's been released in some form or another for almost six years according to the article, and all it's got to show for it is the designer being interviewed by two minor gaming sites and nothing else - and these are just interviews remember, they're not directly covering the game. This is practically zero coverage, and I really don't buy that this is a notable game. If it is, where are the reviews or previews or features from the usual reliable sources? Or from any reliable sources? I'm not comfortable with having to rely on a very few minor and/or questionable ones to prove notability, especially given the massive games coverage on the web. Miremare 01:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the 2 interviews were a year apart, so a "where are you now" sort of follow up makes sense. Especially for the time that this game has been in development. And yes, I agree that a significant game should garner more attention over its dev cycle, though if I were the trade mags I'd be getting a bit impatient. But that's neither here nor there. This clearly isn't WoW. It doesn't have to be a significant game, it just has to be notable per the letter and spirit of WP:N. In my opinion, that standard has been met. Arakunem 01:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem. This game has done nothing notable. What has this game done to pull ahead of the 1000s of other games which have been removed from Wikipedia? This game is not ground breaking, has an average player base under 100, and apparently has come almost nowhere in 6 years. 6 years in alpha stage, using someone elses Engine, beta stage after 20 years? SpigotMap 01:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cited source says 100,000. Do you have a source that says otherwise? Also, see WP:CRYSTAL. This is about right now, not speculating on the future. Nor even comparing it to the other games that have been deleted. The question here is: is there sufficient coverage of the game in multiple, non-trivial, unrelated sources? That's the only standard to consider here. My opinion based on my comments above is: yes. Arakunem 01:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The PRIMARY sources say 100,000 registered players. A quick look at the server stats, wherever they were, shows under 100 regularly playing. SpigotMap 01:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SpigotMap, the number of accounts is a measurement of how many have tried the game. In comparison, World of Warcraft had just over 7,000,000 accounts toward the end of 2006. Tuxide 04:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[4] shows the amount of players online and the amount registered. Keep it mind that these accounts have probably been registered for many years. I believe the server can only support 100 players at any one time... and this is a notable MMO? SpigotMap 01:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
time to double check your research. the server can/has supported more and has had 200+ players on on occastion.64.230.31.250 11:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)steuben[reply]
(Unindenting). Fair enough. I was unclear on which stat you had referred to. But the base standard is still: coverage in reliable sources. Not a lot of connected players, don't like the game's subscription model, disagree with the use of "open", or just don't like any other aspect of it.... thats all irrelevant to the question "Does it pass WP:N, which has nothing to do with the subscription terms, or the server capacity. So far I've seen a lot of reasons to hate the game developers and publisher, but nothing that says it doesn't pass WP:N. Arakunem 02:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It told why it doesn't pass [{WP:N]] is because it does not contain significant coverage, is nothing new, and is unlikely to contribute anything to the world. SpigotMap 02:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. Those things fall under other policies/guidelines, which come up if the article survives AfD. SpigotMap 02:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tuxide 06:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. So far, one potential article indicating notability has been found (the Italian PC Action magazine, whose reliability I'm unfamiliar with and whose article content is uncertain even by the posting editor), after serious digging by "keep" proponents. The remainder are plainly unreliable, trivial mentions and/or user-submitted articles & reviews. Additionally, sources indicating existence are not the end-all be-all. Does even the one potentially reliable source indicate the subject is notable? How and why? To be a bit blunt, I'm flabbergasted (and frankly horrified) at the lack of understanding about basic notability and reliability demonstrated in this discussion. Vassyana 06:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it's not my fault that not too many people are doing any serious digging here. As I said before, WP:RUBBISH; furthermore, articles are not trivial merely because they're only available in paper form. Hell, even Wikipedia was willing to delete an article and restore it to its stub status by going off of a mere newspaper scan suggesting that it was the subject of a defamation lawsuit. Tuxide 08:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • actually two since PC Gamer, October 2001 http://www.planeshift.it/pix/PSinPCgamer_small.jpg, counts as well. and the fact the it is in the news article list of linux format uk puts it most likely to three. but i wonder if there isn't some creeping goal post going on. for every reference that is found the goal post is moved back. with the latest being "i don't know the reference so it doesn't count." i'm beginning to wonder if any reference short of the times or <insert deity> here saying planeshift is notable.64.230.31.250 11:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)steuben[reply]
    • Plus 4 online articles from 2 sources that are significant among all the other listed sidebars, fan reviews, and download sites. (I recognize there may be some concern about the reliability of MMOSite as a source, but its articles are both interviews with a Primary Source. If George Bush gave an interview to a High School newspaper, I'm sure it would be quoted in the NY Times.) I also agree with Vassyana about there being issues with recognizing the fundamental notability criteria. If I may wax pedantic yet again, Notability has nothing to do with "fame, importance, or popularity" (direct quote from WP:N). Nothing to do with marketing, licensing, subscriber base, simultaneous users, etc. The only question that should be posed is: Do the sources provided, taken as a whole, constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". There is naturally some discussion and differences of opinion over that, which is why we are here after all, but a large chunk of the discussion is focusing elsewhere. Arakunem 13:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • so the game supertux, pingus, lincity and many more SMALL and relatively unknown games ARE NOTABLE? yet this big game in comparisson is NOT NOTABLE? Some people are just twits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.167.181.28 (talk) 09:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have read through some of the criticism here, and I will give some comments. First of all, there is a discussion about the game's "notability". Apparently notability is defined as "the game needs to have a lot of articles about it, made by big and known game websites". I, however, define "notable" as "the game is in very active development, has 200 online players every given time of the day and has a flourishing community". The Planeshift team releases a new version every two to three months, the forums and it's IRC channels are very busy and the game server is always populated. Indeed, the person above me notes that even games like SuperTux have their own page and are "notable". You cannot defend Planeshift being "not notable" in any way. Secondly, someone commented on Planeshift's "horrible marketing". I can dismiss this right away as Planeshift *has no marketing* to speak of as it's not a commercial game! It only spreads through happy players, "not notable" wiki particles and various mentions on websites. Thus, I ask what's so wrong about Planeshift's marketing that someone wants to delete this whole article because of it. That person does say, however, that Planeshift is free as in "free beer" and not as in "freedom". First of all you Point of View about how free Planeshift should be is not in any way related to the right of existence of this article, remember that! Secondly, Planeshift's "freeness" and it's license are not confusing. Let me work this out a bit. First of all you have the Open Source 3D engine Crystal Space and entity manager CEL. Both 100% open source and quite notable as they've just engaged in the Orange Game project with the Blender Foundation. On top of that builds the Planeshift engine. This is simply the code for the MMORPG. To make sure Planeshift as a game stays unique and nobody uses the art for his own project, the Art is released under a separate license. The art is made by Planeshift players for Planeshift and stays with Planeshift. There's nothing confusing about that. I noted quite some hostility and emotionalness in this discussion and almost 0 rational neutral arguments. If anybody else has any questions, complaints, or whatever. Please throw them at me, I'll be happy to reply. --86.82.249.66 10:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Supertux and the others may or may not be notable - if not, they'll eventually get AfD'd too. However their presence, or that of any other articles, has no bearing on the inclusion of this article - see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Every article has to prove its own notability per the criteria laid out at WP:N. As for the sources, the Italian magazine is by far the best one - significant coverage in a reliable mainstream independent source - and is in stark contrast to the best of the others, which are pretty shaky. Maybe Planeshift is more popular in Italy than in the English-speaking world? I can't see any other reason for this big difference in quality of coverage... But is there a quantity too? Foreign language sources are perfectly acceptable, so maybe if someone can find another Italian (or whatever language) source we can unequivocally prove notability. Miremare 18:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Other than the articles listed here, I've seen mentions of this game in PC gaming magazines before; that's the reason why I downloaded a copy a couple of years ago (and then deleted it after a few days as it didn't do much). To be perfectly frank, this discussion reads as though some people have a personal vendetta against the game, rather than whether the article is about a subject notable enough to include. Mark Grant 15:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to a lack of non-trivial third party sources about the subject. There are none. Burntsauce 16:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Burntsauce, what "non-trivial third party sources" are you talking about? Is it COMPULSORY for a game to reach the frontpage of gamespy.com before it can have an article? Please stop with the short "delete because x" comments and start making sense! --86.82.249.66 17:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary section break

[edit]
  • General comment on notability: Wikipedia policies on notabiliy exist for a reason. Actually, "notability" is something of a misnomer; what is at issue is not whether a given topic is important, significant, worthwhile, etc. It's a question of whether an encyclopedia article can plausibly be written about the subject without resorting to original research or excessive reliance on sources closely associated with the subject of the article. Numerical thresholds are generally not used as evidence for or against notability. For instance, a minor YouTube celebrity may have attracted 250,000 views and 0.0 mentions in reliable published sources outside YouTube. Conversely, someone who posts an incredibly offensive or shocking video (think Bud Dwyer) may attract only a few hundred views before being taken down, but be extensively covered in reliable published sources. The second person is considered "notable" for WP purposes, the first is not. This problem is especially acute when the only source for the number is the subject of the article itself!
  • If an article can only be sourced to its own subject, a smattering of profiles in fairly obscure websites, and a handful of brief, trivial mentions in sources of decent reliability, then it's reasonable to question whether the article meets our notability guidelines. Seemingly hostile questioning of these policies, or of those who vote to apply them, will not address such a notability problem. The proper way to address it is by finding more and better sources and incorporating them into the article. This would be a much more productive use of everyone's time. <eleland/talkedits> 18:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia has really just lost its way, and this whole discussion is proof of it. This Article was started in January 2003, and been edited ever since, it was classed by people then as notabl and others had no problem with its notability, yet now in October 2007 it has been classed as not notable due to some daft red tape? I have seen the game mentioned in Linux magazines loads of times, how can it not be important enough to have an article there are 1000s of small unknown things to the majority of people in this encylopedia, Wikipedia is NOT paper and this is why Wikipedia was great almost everything ever known could be added and written about. IMO if you delete this article Wikipedia has truly lost its way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.211.112 (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Eleland, if Wikipedia is suddenly changing its policy then this wouldn't bother me. The problem here is, that Planeshift apparently isn't "notable" enough per the policy you mentioned. But then why is something like SuperTux notable enough? Did it have extensive media coverage? If a subject needs to have extensive media coverage before it is allowed, then you should probably have to delete 75% of Wikipedia's articles, not just this one. So again, try to explain to me why practically all game-articles on Wikipedia are notable, except this one. And, I must add, that Planeshift isn't covered on just obscure and very old webpages. The fact that this argument is used over and over again by the ones who are for deletion suggests that you undertake no effort at all to preserve this article. --86.82.249.66 19:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: from what I can see, some of the other games mentioned here would almost certainly fail the notability test and could or should be AFD-ed; so their existence is not an argument for keeping this one. What puzzles me is the number of people claiming that Planeshift is non-notable given the amount of coverage I've seen over the years in PC gaming magazines (but, of course there's no way to link to old paper magazines which I no longer own... being on the web shouldn't be a requirement for notability). Mark Grant 20:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Restatement Being on the web has nothing to do with notability, but who cares what you think you read years ago. If you know what you read, and where you read it, go find a copy online or at a library and source it. This game is what 10years old by one devs remarks at a fan site. That means in 10years of planeshift, no one has supplied a non-trivial article that doesn't consist of user input from a non-fan site. EvanCarroll 20:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, the first few links way way up there are pretty trivial, but if you start at the bottom of the page, the links that have been recently added surely demonstrate that WP:N has been met. I count 5 seperate (un-related) sources that give non-trivial coverage (defined as no original research beyond the source given is needed to understand the subject), with 2 of the sources covering the game on several occasions, and months apart. Arakunem 20:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which five sources are these? Excluding the fansites and trivial mentions, there are the four interviews (from only two sources), which IMO are a little on the dodgy side for providing notability for the game itself, being interviews with the developer rather than features on the game, and one of which mentions the game a grand total of once. The Italian magazine is the only good source I can see here. Miremare 22:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Italian Magazine [5]
        • Warcry Interview [6]
        • Warcry Article on user adoption [7]
        • MMOSite (the dodgy one, but a Primary Source interview) Interview from Oct 07 [8]
        • MMOSite interview from March 06 [9]
        • Linux Magazine (Spanish, but the Italian one was accepted, so...) [10]
        • Ok, so there's even 6. Even taking out all 3 interview articles, you still have 3. However, I think the interviews do constitue appropriate coverage, since they are not published in an outlet affiliated with the subject. Then there's 3 or 4 "FYI/DYK" kind of sidebar blurbs, and then the rest of the above being download sites and fan reviews. Surely this is more than slightly suggesting "multiple non-trivial independant coverage". Arakunem 22:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I see there's a Spanish magazine source too (didn't notice it mentioned further up for some reason). As far as notability is concerned, this and the Italian magazine do it for me. The others still don't, but don't need to now I think. Changing to Keep. Miremare 23:56, 24 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PlaneShift_(computer_game)&oldid=1188719807"