21:
58:
202:) with a large editorial staff, material written by authors who are often notable themselves, clear editorial policies, and so on. In many cases, the fansite itself is written about in reliable sources. In those cases, yes, fansites can be considered reliable, but those are probably 0.0001% of all the fansites out there.
304:
here on
Knowledge (XXG). It's not that we don't think the game exists, but more that we don't think it's important enough or written about by legitimate journalists to be included in the encyclopedia. If the article is deleted, it can always be recreated if or when the sources appear.
94:
saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use
270:
Oke, I agree that the refereces are not reliable, but the game does exits and the story does match with the game and game play. So it might be enough just to shorten the story. Delete the information from doubtfull fan pages.
31:
153:
as we require. Reliable sources do not include the publisher's site, most fansites, open wikis, and reviews by non-professionals, which is what all these references are. This is the reason the article was deleted before.
114:
Article was absolutely not similar
Articles were deleted before (at least Definition, Story, History and References). Previous Articles looks like a description from
252:
181:
133:
66:
278:
74:
96:
27:
209:
the company itself, especially in the form of press releases. A website which does nothing but release press releases
282:
274:
138:
91:
251:
GameFAQs allows pretty much anyone to write reviews, so they're not reliable at all. According to the
81:
310:
260:
222:
159:
62:
50:
214:
150:
20:
325:
236:
173:
125:
107:
188:
77:. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template
115:
39:
70:
306:
256:
218:
155:
151:
reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy
244:
321:
232:
169:
121:
103:
297:
293:
198:
fansites can be reliable. They're generally the big-name publications (often actually
217:
for some examples of the reliable, third-party published sources that we require.
329:
314:
286:
264:
240:
226:
177:
163:
111:
130:
Kneebone, James. "Digger
Interviewing Mehul Patel". Retrieved 7 November 2006
57:
255:, we can only rely on GameFAQs for providing game release dates.
189:
http://www.mcvuk.com/press-releases/38152/Swirvecom-acquisition
90:
the other template on the article and put a note on the page's
15:
182:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Fansites
99:
instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you.
245:
http://www.gamefaqs.com/webonly/916589-utopia/reviews
320:
I deleted some information from doubtfull fan pages
205:We also don't put much stock in material written
69:from Knowledge (XXG), because it appears to be a
71:repost of material that was previously deleted
8:
141:comment added 13:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC).
213:a reliable source. Please take a look at
187:2) Added an reference to reliable site:
253:WikiProject Video games guide to sources
146:Exactly, they're fansites, which are
7:
298:references based on reliable sources
128:) First of all, the reference from
30:on October 31 2010. The result of
14:
184:, some of Fansites ARE reliable.
56:
19:
26:This article was nominated for
1:
330:19:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
315:15:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
287:14:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
265:14:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
247:these articles be reliable?
241:06:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
227:05:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
178:20:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
164:15:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
134:Video_games/Sources#Fansites
112:08:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
345:
61:A tag has been placed on
40:Jolt Online Gaming#Utopia
180:1) As I understood from
118:page. So, it is not G4.
65:requesting that it be
63:Utopia (online game)
51:Utopia (online game)
302:inclusion criteria
132:are under rule of
116:Jolt Online Gaming
277:comment added by
243:Ok. Could any of
46:
45:
336:
289:
142:
86:
80:
75:deletion process
67:speedily deleted
60:
23:
16:
344:
343:
339:
338:
337:
335:
334:
333:
272:
136:
97:deletion review
92:discussion page
84:
78:
54:
12:
11:
5:
342:
340:
318:
317:
268:
267:
230:
229:
203:
167:
166:
102:
53:
47:
44:
43:
32:the discussion
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
341:
332:
331:
327:
323:
316:
312:
308:
303:
299:
295:
292:
291:
290:
288:
284:
280:
279:80.254.148.91
276:
266:
262:
258:
254:
250:
249:
248:
246:
242:
238:
234:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
208:
204:
201:
197:
193:
192:
191:
190:
185:
183:
179:
175:
171:
165:
161:
157:
152:
149:
145:
144:
143:
140:
135:
131:
127:
123:
119:
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
98:
93:
89:
83:
76:
72:
68:
64:
59:
52:
48:
41:
37:
33:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
319:
301:
269:
231:
210:
206:
199:
195:
186:
168:
147:
129:
120:
101:
87:
73:following a
55:
35:
273:—Preceding
137:—Preceding
307:Wyatt Riot
294:Notability
257:Wyatt Riot
219:Wyatt Riot
215:WP:Sources
156:Wyatt Riot
88:underneath
49:Repost of
322:Procariot
233:Procariot
170:Procariot
122:Procariot
104:Procariot
275:unsigned
36:redirect
28:deletion
200:printed
139:undated
82:hang on
211:isn't
194:Yes,
326:talk
311:talk
300:are
296:and
283:talk
261:talk
237:talk
223:talk
196:some
174:talk
160:talk
126:talk
108:talk
34:was
148:not
38:to
328:)
313:)
285:)
263:)
239:)
225:)
207:by
176:)
162:)
110:)
85:}}
79:{{
324:(
309:(
281:(
259:(
235:(
221:(
172:(
158:(
124:(
106:(
42:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
