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. MBisanz talk 03:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ars Regendi

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

This is evidently a "political browser-based game and economic simulation" (based on the article), and the question is whether it currently meets notability guidelines. This article was previously deleted at AfD in January 2008 for lack of sourcing to verify notability. It has since been created several times and speedily deleted under this name and the similar Ars regendi. Additional sourcing is now present which may invite reassessment, making it ineligible for deletion under WP:CSD#G4 (for which it was tagged). This nomination is procedural, as I have no basis to judge the German sources in terms of reliability. Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Additional sourcing could possibly bring the article to OGame level. Elm-39 - T/C 19:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First let me say, that it is not true, that the article "has since been created several times" after the first deletion. Quite contrary, one has patiently waited for about one year until the conditions everybody agreed upon in the first deletion discussion have been fulfilled. That means: independent notable sources like the PC Games, and until a native English speaker (ystradband) decided to write the article. Besides: is notability only a question of the popularity of the sources? Does it not matter at all, what the issue of the article is? An educational game which encourages to get more familiar with politics and economics, and cultivates intercultural exchange of ideas: is that as unimportant (or not notable) as those uncountable websites and games which have less famous sources and deal only with funny or stupid things? Give me one day and I'll find 30 articles here that have weaker references AND - in my oppinion - completely irrelevant matters. Cheers and sorry for my bad English. Malone70 (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Delete per WP:WEB as no reliable and significant coverage present. --Peephole (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:WEB. No references from reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as required by WP:V. All references are self-published, blogs, or trivial side mentions, nothing significant. Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "No references from reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" is simply not true. "trivial side mentions" neither true: they are all particular and independent articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malone70 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - PC Action is a print magazine, so it's certainly reliable, but the coverage is not extensive. Report Die Gruenen seems to be a blog for the Green Party in Germany. The PC Games review is simply a re-print of the PC Action article. Online Game Magazine seems to be just a blog, as does World of Simulation. SharkD (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability in terms of cited sources is on a par with Ogame and far exceeds a large proportion of accepted articles on Wikepedia. As Wikipedia also contains a page that categorises Government simulation games, this article broadens the knowledge of those interested in learning about politics and economics in this way and therefore benefits the encyclopedic nature of the site. Ystradband (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources don't rise to the level of meeting WP:WEB - MrOllie (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet WP:WEB, woefully inadequate sources are a combination of trivial mentions which impart nothing that the game's own documentation won't and unusable materials. Ref #1 is a personal blog with no indication of why the writer's opinion is more reliable than any random net user. As sod's law would have it, this is the only piece of any substance. Refs #2 and #7 are identical text, and a very short description of the game. Ref #3 is a 7-sentence description which is no more a review than an apple pie, it resembles a product description from Big Fish Games. Ref #4 is kind of staggering in the right direction but there's hardly anything there once you lift out yet another basic description of the game. #5 is the Alexa ranking and #6 is just a chunk of copied text from the game's website ending with "It looks pretty good. It says “Basic” membership is free, although I couldn’t find any reference to a “premium” service on the site." - exactly how does that establish notability? Sorry but the whole point of secondary sources is to analyze the game, which these aren't doing, and until that changes it can be nothing more than a product listing which is not what WP is for. Someoneanother 20:40, 31 January 2009 (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.
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ars_Regendi_(2nd_nomination)
No tags for this post.