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 keep. John254 00:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Endless Forest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable game, article written in unencyclopedic manner that should be on the author's website instead. For example, asking for donations, no wikilinks, etc. _ZXCVBNM 23:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no evidence of notability, no external sources. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although it looks awesome (and incredibly creepy), its non-notable spam. The tone and content of the article can be changed, but the subject cannot. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 23:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Keep due to new references provided during the course of this discussion. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 20:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• DO NOT DELETE This is an MMORPG!! This article is not about a random website or aything. This is a game. We, The Endless Forest community, will add sources. Give us time. There are plenty of articles about RuneScape and WoW, can't we have one for The Endless Forest. This is WikiPEDIA, not WikiPOPULAR. Keep this article! The game designers deserve it!WebSiter100 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WebSiter100 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• — WebSiter100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Yes, you are right about one thing. However, notability is not equivalent to popularity. MuZemike (talk) 03:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please do not delete this page. We will write up a proper reference/citation section as soon as possible. I have looked over the guidelines and corrected most if not all the errors so far in order to get it in line with the standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblywums (talk • contribs) 01:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• — Bubblywums (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Maybe you need to read the guidelines at WP:NOTE. No matter what your subject is, if it hasn't recieved significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, it's not notable enough for a separate article. Unless you can find and post these sources here, it's still non-notable no matter how detailed it is.--_ZXCVBNM 02:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but cleanup — I have found three sources providing coverage [1], [2], and somewhat [3] and [4]. MuZemike (talk) 03:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, we will edit it and clean it up. But the article now fits most of the Wikipedia standards when writing an article about a game. Just give us time while we make it Wikipedia-worthy and do not delete it. We just added many sources as well. WebSiter100 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    • In particular, there are way too many external links in the article. They should be few in number and restricted to a dedicated section at the bottom of the page. SharkD (talk) 10:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further, Fair Use probably does not justify the number of images in the article. Most of them will probably need to be removed. SharkD (talk) 11:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - While they are in the minority, I think there are enough quality references in the article to support the topic's notability. That said, there is a lot of content in the Development section that needs referencing. SharkD (talk) 10:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but cleanup as per above. Perhaps we should Rename it as well? --.:Alex:. 14:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, the capitalization needs to be fixed. SharkD (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this article. [Ed. duplicate vote] We will cite everything and give the pictures credit and everything if we can just have time. We will fix everything as soon as we can.Thank you.WebSiter100 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Please, vote only once per discussion. Voting more than once is considered incivil. SharkD (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies. WebSiter100 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    • Consensus, not vote. Let's not give people the wrong ideas... Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are working hard to fix the article. What more needs to be changed so that it is fit for Wikipedia? 74.68.145.9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

You should remove all the screenshots in the setting section unless they provide critical commentry towards the article and replace the screenshot in the infobox with a logo for the game if possible. Salavat (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, didnt relize they were free use. Salavat (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification about the images. Yes, we will replace the image in the infobox with perhaps the banner. WebSiter100 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Are those images really free, or are they mistagged? If the images are free, they need evidence of permission—for example, a link to a page on their website stating release under the GFDL. Also, those references need some cleaning up. It's hard to tell what's out there now, and some of them are forum posts that don't appear appropriate for Wikipedia. Pagrashtak 18:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, the references are mostly used for development history information, so they can be considered a primary source. As for the images, I also don't remember it ever being mentioned that the game was released under the GFDL. I stongly suspect otherwise given the nature of its content. SharkD (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decided to remove the image until we can figure out the correct licensing, not sure if those screenshots are actually under GFDL or something else. Will re-add if they are actually free use, under the right licensing. Bubblywums (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per MuZemike's finds. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I am changing my input to Strong Keep after finding additional media coverage on this subject, including a write-up in the Spanish newspaper El Pais and two articles on the influential IGN.com site. Admittedly, this article is a mess and needs serious editing -- but it would be a mistake to delete it when notability can be confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Deletion is not a replacement for cleanup. Sam ^Blab 20:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: there's a lot of unreliable sources in here. But citing press releases and the official site is still acceptable for the purposes of WP:V. And in order to meet WP:N and WP:V, there are a few reliable third-party sources that note this game. I see no reason for deletion, now or in the future. Randomran (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agreed, needs major cleanup (AfD is not a cleanup discussion page), but there are some reliable third-party that do note this game as mentioned above, which is enough to meet WP:V and WP:N, so I have to agree to keep the article per the notable and reliable findings. — RyanCross (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as in addition to WP:JNN, WP:PERNOM, and WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC not being compelling arguments, Ecoleetage, MuZemike, and Randomran have all presented compelling cases that based on available sources the subject actually is sufficiently notable for our purposes and that it only need improvement, like pretty much all articles can use (nothing is "perfect" after all). Anyway, good job finding the soruces gang and I'm glad to see the open-mindedness with those who have changed their stances in acknowledgment of these rescue efforts. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article is greatly improved with reference and citation of enough independent reviews to prove WP:N. Improvements to the article will obviously continue. Two3E (talk) 07:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is in need of some TLC but that is a clean-up issue. I'm alo impressed with eager editors who need guidance so am willing to shovel some good faith as well. The article need to, per wp:lede, give a bit more oomph about why this game is unique and notable. On first blush it seems to be because it's a unique gaming experience that counter-intuitively blends societal constructs and deconstructions - just a guess. Finding some high-brow reliable source that states something similar and place that more prominently will help. Also see wp:citation templates as those bare http strings are dead give-away that you haven't suffered enough. -- Banjeboi 12:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help, copliments and advice. We will add whatever needs to be needed. There is one sentence that needs to be cited correctly, and we will make sure about the images. The article may never be perfect but we will do our best to get it close. WebSiter100 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:17, 3 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.