Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TinyWarz

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 10:26Z

[edit] TinyWarz

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

TinyWarz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Image:Tinywarz tumb.gif (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Tw modify units.gif (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:TinyWarz ingame.gif (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

A webgame that doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB and doesn't contain information attributable to reliable sources. The three sources provided are a forum link, a weblog, and an unattributed review (I'm guessing user-submitted). search doesn't bring up reliable sources. Wafulz 03:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Wafulz's asessment of the sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Blue's News (a reliable source) source is not to a message board link, Blue's News archives have a message-board like format. Game was awarded Most Innovative of 2006 by an independent game news site that is also a blog. Lastly, TinyWarz is a notable independent game that is significantly different that other wikipedia-listed browser based games, over half of which have no sources (Evolution, Pardus, Planetarion, Shartak ... etc.) see wikipedia's list of browser-based games. BlKat
  • Blue's News doesn't actually have any information about TinyWarz, and I see no reason to separate this weblog from any of the hundreds of thousands of other weblogs out there. Those other games that you've mentioned could also be facing deletion soon (though they're not relevant to this discussion). Notability is not determined subjectively- it has to meet WP:WEB. --Wafulz 05:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd disagree, Blue's News chose to recommend TinyWarz to their readership, that represents a notable achievement for an indie game - are you saying that if CNN were to provide a link to an unknown news site that simply read "Great News Here" that wouldn't be significant? Those other games are relevant to this discussion, TinyWarz was given 6 hours to demonstrate WP:WEB, the authors of those pages were given weeks, months, and even years to get them into shape (I don't want to pull out WP:BITE, but something seems seriously wrong with this). BlKat
    • You have until this AFD is closed to bring the article up to standards. Furthermore, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not an argument. Finally, one will notice that in the past day this site has recommend in an identical fashion no fewer than 4 games, all of which appear to be "indie", as it is put. As this site seems to be nothing but a link aggregator of stuff they think is "cool", I can't in good faith think that being linked to in such a fashion is at all notable. So, I'll say Delete, as well. --Haemo 06:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
      • In fact, upon further searching, there appears to be something like 40-odd games recommended in this fashion, with no substantive comment, since the start of 2007. You can't seriously contend that satisfies WP:WEB. --Haemo 06:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Also, you have a serious WP:COI commenting on this issue without disclosing that you're the primary contributor to the article in question, and then suggesting WP:BITE may apply here. --Haemo 06:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• So your main gripe about this article is the citation? I'm sorry but for a game of TinyWarz' size official recognition is few and far between. The author used what he/she could find, but the rest of the information is about the game itself. How is it possible to cite information if there is little outside information on the game to BEGIN with? Dr. Mordecai 18:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Did you just read what you wrote? What you just argued is that this site cannot meet guidelines under WP:WEB, but should be kept regardless. That's patently absurd. If you can't find reliable sources that show this game is notable, it should be deleted per standards under WP:NOTE. This isn't a popularity contest. --Haemo 01:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Also, it seems to me that the "Blues News" citation is the problem. If that were to be removed, along with the "information" from it, would that alleviate your issues with the page?

• • Comment: Well, no, since we are arguing about notability, and this the only evidence of notability provided. If you remove the link, there is no notability, and it should be deleted. --Haemo 01:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• I found this game originaly from that Blues News link. Blues news is a major link sight with comment. I even bought and wore out one of their T shirts. The Journalistic content of Blues News is their. I have seen Commenary and such that brought me back to that sight over and over, just to find out what Blues Dog had done now. I love Blues news and defenetly repect it as a great source of news and info. I really enjoyed the filter of links that he provides to both game and none game topics. There is so much on the internet that one can read, and the job of a good link sight is to tell or suggest to you what you might find interesting, and Blues News Does that for me in spades. 70.59.86.64 19:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Walterohdim
  • Comment - how is this any sort of argument for notability? A link, without any comment, from a site that links to many, many sites in a similar fashion does not notability make. --Haemo 01:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep As a newbee to Wikipedia, I have got a few question to the person who have proposed to delete this article.
  • Do you really believe, that games are not a part of our (human) culture and civilization? If you think that several web based games are irrelevant here, why don't you propose to delete the football article? It is not web-based, but still a game.
  • Do you really believe, that small things do not deserve placing here? Let's take an example of a small city of Zabrze in Poland. Do you really believe, that it should be deleted, only because the external links lead to something that was created by Poles, who are definitely not objective (like people from the Tiny Warz community), and so they are not reliable? Should we keep small, new things, especially if thay have something special (like TinyWarz 2D graphics interface)? I allways thought, Wikipedians want to be leaders, and not the followers. Or maybe I am too new here to understand the idea of Wikipedia?
• Having read what you have typed, I think that the most serious problem here is that the TinyWarz is not important enough, to deserve being placed in the Wikipedia. Am I right? That is true, TinyWars is a mere entertainment, and does not pretend to be something as important as the Vietnam War. But we do have articles about other games and sports, that are also not so important, don't we?
• One more thing: the same google query, as proposed by Wafulz, but with "-forum" modifier gives 80k hits. Moreover, it is more reasonable to expect some info about a game on website like pc.gamezone.com than at BBC, CNN or in the .edu and .gov domaines. In my opinion, in this case some .edu sites should be cosidered less reliable.

If you believe, that information is not documented enough, maybe you could place the same warning as for the Vietnam War? Rafkory 20:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment this is absurd. If you want to argue that the guidelines under WP:NOTE should not apply, then argue this on WP:NOTE, not here. Guidelines are not subjective, and, yes, non-notable things do not belong on Wikipeida. As a "newbie", perhaps you should review WP:NOTE and WP:NOT, since your suggestion violates both of these. The article on the Vietnam War is exceedingly well document, and the topic is notable. This article is not.
  • In addition, subtracting forum means you're getting hits from their forums. It's absurd to claim that makes it notable in any way, shape or forum. --Haemo 01:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Notability issues aside, there are still no attributable reliable sources which actually present any sort of information. User-submitted information, minor blogs, and trivial/passing mentions are not substantial or reliable. --Wafulz 02:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If you don't mind, please tell us which sections in those documents that relate to how this isn't wikipedia worthy.
    • Well, right in the nutshell section: "All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source."
    • "A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process, or with a poor reputation for fact-checking." --Wafulz

Reply - To elaborate, upon a cursory examination of the guidelines, there appear to be the following violations of WP:WEB:

• The content itself has not been the subject of multiple and non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
• The website or content has not won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.
• The content is not distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.

So, as we will note, it completely fails all notability requirements. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of the material on the page is not attributed to anyone - and certainly not to any reliable sources cited on the page, which in any case say next-to-nothing about the game in any case. --Haemo 02:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Updated sourcing and game type - massively multiplayer turn-based strategy, which makes TinyWarz unique. Again, this article was nominated for deletion six hours after it was created, this delete seems a little over-zealous. Article now has more sources than most browser-based games on wikipedia (most of which have none), applying deleter's arguments: shouldn't most articles about browser-based games on wikipedia be up for deletion as well? BlKat
  • Yes, they probably will be deleted once I have the time to research/nominate them. However, the source provided is just a reprinted press release- it was submitted by some random. I could also submit news via the "Submit news" option just below it. It also hasn't "created" a new genre if nothing about that genre has been mentioned yet (though most mentions of this "genre" point to a game called Evernight, which is also of dubious standing). --Wafulz 03:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • ... "could also be facing deletion", "probably will be deleted" - can you be any more transparent? You don't intend to delete those articles or nominate them for lack of WP:WEB (you've had years to it). This one is an easy target, it's still being built; so you can flex your wiki-muscle by going after it. I was really looking forward to joining the wikipedia community, but after this demonstration I think I'll be staying away. I'm not going to join a community that works so hard to destroy the work of others. BlKat
      • I'm not flexing "wikimuscle" at all- I've had articles deleted/nominated for deletion here too. I'm a student, so I have a weird, and often crowded schedule, which means I can't just make a dozen nominations at once. We're all new at some point, and we don't always know how things go around here. If you want some examples of "more established" articles I've nominated for deletion, then here you go: (they're all of the same variety as this one)
        • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom Eras
        • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kings of Chaos
        • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nexus War (second nomination)

• Unfortunately, not all material is suited for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I don't intend to make you feel victimized. --Wafulz 04:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP You didn't give this time enough to get into code. Whistles384 04:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)whistles384
  • I'm not sure what you mean by the code comment. Also, you just need the four tildes- you don't have to type your name out. --Wafulz 04:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• What I meant was that you didn't even give it enough to get up to the guidelines. You just randomly found this conveniently after 6 hours of it posting and decided to delete it without being conscientious of the little newbie guidelines that BlKat stated up there.
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 04:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - you have until this AFD closes to bring it up to standards. If this topic really is notable, then you should have no problems doing that. If you can bring it up to standards, I would gladly rescind my objections to inclusion. As it stands, you have not made any serious progress towards doing this, and my objections stand. I also seriously object to any accusation of WP:BITE - enforcing Wikipedia's guidelines in a civil and forthright manner is not "biting" anyone, and I find it tests the boundaries of my good will to be repeatedly accused of it in this discussion. --Haemo 05:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, lack of credible citations is listed as a problem which "may not require deletion" in the Deletion_policy. Furthermore, the policy states that for deletion, the article must clearly violate the notability requirement. Tinywarz was cited by a popular game news website, and has over 30,000 external references (from google), so it's not clearly non-notable. In fact, looking at the pages that were deleted for being "not notable", it seems this reason is used exclusively for entries which have no external references at all. The two obscure web-games brought up earlier also had deletion discussions over notability, and both were kept. --yaroslavvb
  • From the deletion policy: Articles and text which are capable of meeting these should usually be remedied by editing, but content which fails inclusion criteria for Wikipedia, is incapable of verification with reputable sources, or is in breach of copyright policy, is usually deleted. Those other articles, while not relevant to this discussion, should really be renominated (they defaulted to a "keep" because of lack of substantial discussion). --Wafulz 04:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Again, we have specifically addressed this argument. This article does not meet standards under WP:NOTE, and therefore does not qualify for inclusion. The fact that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on this - especially when the keep was procedural! None of the sources assert, or support notability for this game, and, frankly, you aren't even arguing they do. Instead, you have decided that we should just ignore policy because, apparently, WP:ILIKEIT. This is not a compelling argument, and I strongly urge you to read up on the guidelines under WP:NOTE and WP:WEB before making arguments that run directly contrary to Wikipedia policy. --Haemo
• REPLY Is there a problem with having information in an encyclopedia? Why are you (you being the collective group of "editors") attacking internet games, vying for their deletion? Allowing SOME information in and deleting others based on arbitrary, albeit confusing rules seems to be more of a restriction of information. How are we supposed to fix the page when it's doomed from the get-go? Is there anything you could suggest that would be HELPFUL and not as negative as deleting it?Dr. Mordecai 04:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The rules are not arbitrary- Wikipedia cannot be a primary source. Only attributable information is allowed to be used. While this page might be "doomed from the get go", there are tons of other articles that need work. Check out Wikipedia:Community Portal/Opentask for a good place to start. --Wafulz 04:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Echoing this, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. No one is attacking anything, and the rules are neither confusing nor arbitrary. To repeat, notability is not an arbitrary, nor a subjective attribute of topic. Either bring the article up to standards, or it will be deleted. --Haemo 05:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary section break

• I would like to note that NO ONE has asked any of us to say anything here. We do this because we want to Whistles384 04:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It's mostly precautionary in this case. --Wafulz 04:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I will assume good faith that this is true, but it is frankly more than a little suspicious to see a large number of brand-new contributors all appear, and make edits solely to an WP:AFD discussion, with apparent little to no regard, or understanding, of established Wikipedia policy. --Haemo 05:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • We don't need understand of the wiki policy to argue for something we want to stay put. Whistles384 05:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment - I think this just about summarizes the entire debate right here. You don't understand Wikipedia policy, or it's guidelines - but frankly, you couldn't care less, because WP:ILIKEIT. That's not an argument! That's patently the most ridiculous thing I have encountered, and a singularly offensive attitude to anyone who cares about this project. This is not a popularity contest. Your personal like or dislike has no bearing on this, and I strongly urge you to strike out all your comments if this is the rationale you have behind your argument. This is not a vote, and outright denials of Wikipedia policy totally abuse this process and degrade the Encyclopedia as a whole. --Haemo 05:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• OK, For one thing, I'd like to know. Other than DrMordecai and Whistlese, have any of you people played the game? If you had, you'd know that there are MANY reliable sources in the game, for the game! Jesus, by your warped logic, all the articles on online games lack "reliable sources" - except for all the commercial games. Does anyone here in your so called "Editor's Circle" have anything useful to say to help us? How can we improve the TW page? Because, to me, it seems like all you're doing is slinging poo all over the place. --LordRex 16:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Find game reviews from reliable sources. Most often, online games are kept because they have had a full-length review printed in a widely syndicated gaming magazine. If you can't find one of those, try and find full-length reviews from websites that don't contain user-submitted reviews/recommendations/etc. Articles in major newspapers too. The only catch with all this is that the articles must have more than a passing mention (ie, more than a short blurb). Reliable sources have some sort of editorial oversight and credibility to them; Wikipedia articles are only as credible as their sources- if the sources aren't credible, then the information isn't credible, meaning it should be removed. --Wafulz 05:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Independent review added! Does that improve our standings? --Jester
  • Again, this is an archive of a random weblog. See above with regards to editorial oversight. --Wafulz 05:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • In fact, it looks like this website is a conglomeration of friends posting on a shared weblog. The fact that "LOL" appears 7 times on the first page alone isn't comforting. --Wafulz 05:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, I must ask that editors read the standards under WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOTE, and WP:WEB. This does not satisfy those, for obvious reasons. --Haemo
  • Wafulz, in regard to the use of "LOL" here is the introduction to the staff page:

"The distinguished staff of TIGSource are a varied lot, culled from all over cyberspace to bring you all your indie gaming news, all the time.

Want to join the elite ranks of volunteers? Just pop me an e-mail telling me why you're fit to be a TIGSource editor. Probably the easiest way to get accepted to TIGSource is to have good writing skills - just because we're casual and fun doesn't mean that we type like monkeys! The second is enthusiasm. You gotta love indie games. Both should be reflected in your e-mail, so don't slouch!"

They may not be proffessional but they are an independent source and quite numerous. The main fact we're trying to get across is that this game does not have major recognition but does have unbaised reviews from external sources. Provided this page continues to exist we will continue updating and trying to gain more "appropriate" reviews for more distinguished sources. But you must understand that if you kill this site from the start than we'll barely have the chance to do so. Also Haemo, "obvious reasons" isn't a phrase I particularly like, these guides are very wordy and difficult to translate into real english. If you would care to properly articulate why this latest reference is unworthy, it would be appreciated. --Jester

Well, from your excerpt: "Want to join the elite ranks of volunteers? Just pop me an e-mail telling me why you're fit to be a TIGSource editor. Probably the easiest way to get accepted to TIGSource is to have good writing skills." Basically, anyone can become a "game reviewer" for the site provided they write well (which is really subjective judging from the entries). These people don't even have to be well-versed in anything online, let alone in games, which speaks piles about their credibility. It's the same as picking up someone off the street and asking them their opinion of the game.

I've done a pretty exhaustive search for good sources, and it doesn't look like the article has a chance of surviving. If you'd like, an administrator can have a copy of the article moved to your user page (or someone else's), sort of "housing" it until better sources (assuming they exist) come up sometime in the future. This is probably the best solution available right now- it won't have an article, but all the work on won't be lost. --Wafulz 06:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Wafluz, you said "Basically, anyone can become a "game reviewer" for the site provided they write well (which is really subjective judging from the entries)". What other skills are necessary to write articles for Wikipedia? Sorry, but your argument does not convince me. On the other, I would like to thank you for the helpful hint.

• • Wafluz, so, exactly what does TW lack in comparison to Earth 2025? Maybe instead of harping on about what's wrong, maybe you can offer your unique brand of insight on what we can do to make the TW page more interesting and more "up to standard". And maybe, just maybe, you can play the game for yourself and make an informed opinion on it. --LordRex 17:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I could become a writer for that website. I could make a post going "Hey I heard about this game TinyWarz. It's really lousy and awful, avoid it at all costs." I don't even have to prove that I've played it, and yet by that site's standards I could write whatever I feel like. Anyone can write for it- it's not a good source, and that should be pretty clear. Earth 2025 has won two Webby Awards, which clearly meets WP:WEB, and has had multiple reviews (though only one is cited, I'll admit). These reviews are not user-submitted, and they actually have names attached to them too. Its publisher has also been named as a featured publisher by Right Media. I'm not here to make a judgement call on TinyWarz- I'm here to decide if there are reliable sources for the subject, of which there appear to be none. --Wafulz 13:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - first of all, stop with the personal attacks. They're totally unproductive, and contrary to Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, we have clearly outlined what needs to be done - find reliable sources that assert, and support, notability for this game. None have been produced, so this article, by Wikipedia's own guidelines, should be deleted. Furthermore, read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS before repeating this same argument. If you think Earth 2025 should be deleted, then nominate; don't try to get this article kept because another article does not meet standards either. --Haemo 07:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Mentioning entries like Shartak and Planetarion has to do with precedent, rather than "WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS". Similar discussion over deletion was initiated over two entries with similar problems as this one, and the editor decision was to keep. --yaroslavvb
  • I could bring up precedent which led to deletion too. It's not relevant if it doesn't even meet policy. --Wafulz 13:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Precedent is relevant because it saves time on discussion that has taken place already. Similar arguments were brought up for Shartak and Planetarion and were not found sufficient, so the question is -- if they didn't work there, why would they work here? I believe you are trying to apply WP:WEB too strictly. Looking at the first several dozen deletions due to WP:WEB in deletions log, they seem to be used for entries with no external references at all, not the case here. --yaroslavvb
      • Neither of them really discussed WP:RS or WP:ATT (which are thresholds of inclusion). Most of it was spent bickering about "this number is big", which is not at all the main point in my nomination. --Wafulz 00:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
        • If the problem is not notability, but lack of sources, why not use the Unreferenced tag, and give Wikipedia community time to find some sources? After all, this entry is fairly new. For instance, that's what editors decided to do for Dark_throne which also lacked sources at the time of AfD nomination.--yaroslavvb
          • This is a five day process. If sources can't be found in five days, then they likely won't be found at all. --Wafulz 15:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Five days is too short. Another entry I contributed to (Morphological_image_processing) took several months before even one external source was found. In fact, I'm willing to bet that if you take wikipedia entries at random, most of them started as unreferenced descriptions, and had references added weeks or even months later. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yaroslavvb (talk • contribs) 17:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
              • Well internet articles tend to have internet sources. If they exist, and if any are found, I'm sure they can be mentioned on this article's new home on the Tinywarz wiki- there's no need to keep unsourced material here just for the sake of keeping it just in case some sources exist. --Wafulz 00:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
                • The reason to keep unsourced material is because it was just added, and the wikipedia community hasn't had enough time to add sources. The argument here seems to be that the if the Wikipedia community doesn't find sources within 5 days, the entry must be deleted. That is against the spirit of Wikipedia, and you can find many entries for which the sources were added weeks or months after the entry's creation. Similar discussion took place over deletion of Dark Throne entry and the decision was to keep the article with "Unreferenced" template -- yaroslavvb
              • Furthermore, why would any editor produce an article in good faith that they knew did not meet standards? That violates not only Wikipedia policies, but the principle of the Encyclopedia itself. A hypothetical future source, which no one can find or produce, does not notability make. --02:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
                • Editors are not paid, and you can't expect all the editors to always reference their information, that's why they put it on wiki where other people can add references. As far as notability, I think you are trying to apply it too strictly. I gave two examples which are very similar to tinywarz (in a sense that google doesn't give reliable sources) and for which discussion over notability led to a negative ( Shartak and Planetarion). If you look at the list of recent deletions over notability, you'll see that it's used almost exclusively to delete one/two paragraph entries with people writing about themselves, or things that can't be found on google at all. -- yaroslavvb
                  • If you look at the list of recent deletions over notability, you'll see that it's used almost exclusively to delete one/two paragraph entries with people writing about themselves, or things that can't be found on google at all. I don't know where you're getting this from- while it is sometime the case, it's certainly not exclusive. Material must be attributable from the get go. There's no way around this. --Wafulz 16:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
                    • I agree that it must be attributable, but just don't agree that five days is long enough for wikipedia community to find proper attribution. Five days is too short to delete it for lack of sources, number of internet references to tinywarz and people interested in this topic is too large to delete it for lack notability. --Yaroslavvb
                      • I'm not sure of your logic here. You seem to be claiming that the 'number of internet references' and number of 'people interested' is 'too large', yet say you (or someone else) can't find a couple of reliable sources when you're given five days. Nuttah68 19:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
                        • That's pretty typical of Wikipedia though. I'm willing to bet that most entries in wikipedia existed without any references for the first couple of weeks (just look at History for some random pages), and had references added later. You can't expect the original the first 1 or 2 editors to fill out all required information, that's the whole point of having the Wikipedia community to fall back on. All I'm saying is that we should tag the page with "Unreferenced" template as and give some time for the wikipedia community to fill in the sources (a month maybe?). --Yaroslavvb
• Comment It seams to me, that the problem editors are trying to point out, is the lack of the notoriety that is confirmed by independent sources, that are reliable from the editors point of view. In such cases, there are two solutions proposed: either to delete, or to merge with the article, that stisfies the criterion of notoriety. The same was propsed for the Saint Monica's Church, Barre: "Merge into Barre, Vermont." Do the editors believe, that the article about the web games satisfy the standards? If so, we might just propse to move TW to that article, until the right sources are found.

Telling the true, due to the nature of the web games (all of them) they need a lot of time to become known to so called "general public", unless they have a big company supporting it, that is able to spend money on PR. If I may use the analogy, the same sittuation is with the SF books in Poland. Books published in big number of copies are not either mentioned by the "mainstream" magazines, that are sponsored by the Ministery of Culture, as there are not "serious" enough. Using this criterion, you would not be allowed to place any SF authors in Polish Wikipedia but Isaac Assimov, Philip K. Dick, Stanisław Lem and Mikhail Bulgakov and authors, whose books were used for making a movie picture. For all the other authors, the sources that exist are linked to SF community, and not the official 'literature' organisations, i.e. they do not satisfy the independence criterion .

Rafkory 11:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Not having native-language sources is not the same as having zero sources. I nominated the game Popomundo a while back, but withdrew my nomination once it was revealed that there were sources in Spanish. --Wafulz 13:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Sources seem to be blogs and sites that have no established reputation for fact checking. Arguments for keep seem to be WP:ILIKEIT. —Ocatecir ^Talk 11:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Nowehere near notable enough for a web game as far as I'm concerned, sources are in no way reliable, only arguement for keeping appears to be WP:ILIKEIT and self-promotional reasons, and the article is riddled with game guidey and how-to-play information, which violates WP:NOT. The Kinslayer 11:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Despite many polite requests the article still has no reliable sources to support the notability claimed. Nuttah68 13:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I don't see any reliable sources. Has it been written about in any magazines or newspapers, for instance? I couldn't find any on LexisNexis. — brighterorange (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment this oddly feels like a continuation or expansion of the recent slate of afd's for various webcomics. if that is deliberate or accidental is a completely different debate. however, from what i have been able to glean from those debates, the afd should be the _second step_ after a request for sources hasn't been met. but, somebody will probably say if such is formal policy or just basic politeness. so base question, was that formal request for sources even made, or did somebody just light the primer cord on the article without even making the cursory attempt to start the process to fix it. 70.51.53.37 14:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC) steuben (fixing my spelling)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TinyWarz&oldid=110529681 As this diff shows, the prod clearly states where the article was failing, and the removal of the prod by an editor is tantamount to acknowledgement of the articles failings. Following the failure to actually address these isssues, the deletion process was moved to an AfD. So yes, a chance was given for the article to be fixed, but it was squandered. The Kinslayer 14:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• I would like to know how a game is to be reviewed without someone actually playing it. Whistles384 16:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not an issue for wikipedia. The Kinslayer 16:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Echoing this, you seem to have maintained the belief throughout this whole AFD that this is process is somehow a "review" of the game. It's not. We're not reviewing the game - we're evaluating whether or not it should included in this Encyclopedia. Since it does not meet minimum standards under WP:WEB, it should not be included. --Haemo 16:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I mean. You guys say that there needs to be a source that is reputable and can't have anyone's opinion of the game in the reviews. How can the game be reviewed without someone actually playing it first? That's how all reviews are done.Whistles384 17:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

We did not say that at all. Read the standards under WP:WEB, WP:ATT, and WP:RS before commenting further. Furthermore, you have a WP:COI commenting on this article without making it clear that you're an active contributor on the TinyWarz Wiki. --Haemo 02:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment WP:WEB is an invalid arguement in this case. tinywarz is a game not a website. it is a game that happens to played through <insert browser here>. if tinywarz was played through a downloaded and separate client then the WP:WEB arguement would not apply. so by extenstion neither does the WP:WEB here. unless Wafulz would like to expand on reasons for including the wp:web argument.70.51.53.37 16:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)steuben

You answered your own question. WP:WEB applies because you don't download anything to play. You said so yourself, you have to launch a web browser, go to the web site and play the game whilst surfing the web. There is no 'by extension', WP:WEB applies to web sites, and this game is played through a web site. Or to put it another way, the website is the game and the game is the website. Very simple, no big leap of logic needed. Looking at your argument, what you have essentially said is: WP:WEB doesn't apply because you play the game through a web site. If you had to download anything, then WP:WEB would indeed not apply. It is then covered by WP:SOFTWARE and this article would STILL be here in an AfD.The Kinslayer 16:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I disagree with such an argument for basically the same reasons. First of all, WP:WEB does apply, as per Kinslayer's argument. Moreover, even if it did not the reason for deletion is per WP:NOTE and WP:ATT, which WP:WEB is a subset of - thus, a simple reductio argument shows that deletion is the proper standard in either respect. --Haemo 16:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also just like to comment that, despite assertions to the contrary, this AFD has been linked to from the TinyWarz wiki http://wiki.mobrulestudios.com/index.php?title=Main_Page by a developer. So, I would suggest tagging SPA's as they arise. On the plus side, the TinyWarz page has apparently also been TransWiki'd to their personal Wiki, so we can avoid having to do that. --Haemo 16:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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.