1305:, the age of the authors is not relevant for competences assessment, provided the coherence and integrity of the article. In the Bright Hub case you referred, despite being a student and having a certificate in Fine Art, the author has written a valid reliable review and her legitimacy is proven by the article itself, which was edited and published by the managing editor and writer of the MMO & MMORPG gaming section of this company. May I remind you that even the great mainstream media often produce content with several grammatical errors, and those are often disregarded or unnoticed since the articles are published through what is considered a reliable media. Regards, --
1404:, that the lack of prior publishing history is not even mentioned in Knowledge (XXG) policies in order to determine the reliability or questionability of the sources. However, since you mentioned and have unfortunately missed all the author's profile pages, which have links to a vast amount of related and non related articles published by themselves (and in some cases edited and co-published by experts in the area), reveal that your comment is deeply unfounded and biased. I am sorry I had to point that out to you and I hope to remind to the
1065:
accusations of articles or authors of entire web-sites that are not in the
Knowledge (XXG) blacklist are based on your opinions only and not on actual proofs. If those sites get promoted to the blacklist, the source will obviously be invalid, but until then, if the author is identified and the article has relevant and consistent content, they are third-party reliable sources as placed in Knowledge (XXG) policies pages. A reminder to the
1551:
section also serves to prevent associations between the entity responsible for the subject that concerns the
Knowledge (XXG) article and the enterprises that publish articles about that entity, i.e., it is a way to prevent that entity to use personal blogs, books or other personal media as references
1273:
The Bright Hub review is by a self-professed "18 year old Fine Art student" on a commission-based review site. The Helium review is on another commission-based review site and the author appears to write more poetry than anything else. Both are amateur reviews with spelling and grammar mistakes, not
1064:
of particular
Knowledge (XXG) users. With so many stub and incomplete articles of the same genre, this almost seems a joint attempt to find excuses to delete a relevant article with relevant content, when there are sources complying with the Knowledge (XXG) policies, as shown above. The non reliable
1053:
and the other is Neil Yates, the author of the game which knowledge you are concerned to nominate for deletion. They are not journalists, which seems there is little chance, or none at all, to publish a full expert article in a mainstream media covering the whole subject. Therefore, according to the
1428:
Brighthub and Helium are self-publications. I could not see evidence of published works in the biographies of McDonald or
Wilkins other than more articles on the same sites. I will investigate Gamertell further as it looks promising. Stunned to hear about the obsolescence of the voting system, as I
1096:
No offense, but the editors who regularly contribute to articles for deletion are very much aware that these aren't votes, but a way to help reach consensus - that being said no one is voting and it comes of as slightly desperate to accuse us as such. Each editor has cited policies or their own
993:
this could be used, but not to establish the game's notability - merely to point out some feature of the game (which could be done better with a primary source (I.E. the game's website) once notability is established. The GamerTell article might be a start, though. Staff have to be hired on as
1202:
Consensus has not been reached because you deem it to be so. Consensus is the majority thought in accordance with guidelines. The consensus must be made on the notability and reliability of the references given, which, no offense, is likely to be better suited to those who have had extensive
1043:
Generally the Bio information about an article's author is not available to the reader, therefore you are including a matter that does not concern to this subject. However, since you referred it, in this particular case, despite her age (which should not be relevant for competences assessment,
623:
To clarify, I was not using the previous AfD to support my argument but to clarify that it does not seem to have been deleted for exactly the same reason as this AfD suggests. I was not referring to those reviews specifically, but only to show there are numerous third party reviews out there.
1044:
provided the coherence and integrity of the article), the author has written a valid reliable review and her legitimacy is proven by the article itself, which was edited and published by the managing editor and writer of the MMO & MMORPG gaming section of this company. Therefore the
1077:
and has no weight to the outcome of the final decision when reliable sources are present in the article. Therefore, since the content is considered notable at the moment, I thank you all for this discussion and kindly request you to withdraw the delete nomination. Regards,
674:
were valuable to this matter and appreciated, therefore were promptly included in the references of the article. It is normal that websites try to promote games to their target audience, thus non-formal language is frequently used. However, the
British Indie interview,
748:. Without disregarding any of the requirements, you can also help to find other sources for this subject, instead of proposing the deletion of an article already presenting encyclopedic content. Also, although related with the official web-site of the game, the
1477:, glad I could be of use. However, note that it is normal that employees publish their articles in the company that gives them employment, but if you are interested in finding articles of their authorship in other websites (not a requirement according to
1570:
Both Bright Hub and Helium are commission-based article sites, where ultimately anyone can create an account, write an article, and get paid based on how many hits the article gets. Neither site has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" that our
1546:
there is a clear distinction at the header indicating that the article was edited and published not by the writer but by the managing editor and writer of the MMO & MMORPG gaming section of this company, as I mentioned before. Secondly, the
1048:
is not devalued by this, on the contrary, it serves to provide greater value to it. If you are contesting areas of expertize, there is only two known experts in the development of zombie's MMORPGs till this moment, one is the author of
580:
What the previous AfD said is irrelevant, as we are here to assess the current version of the article on its merits. None of the sources given by Tlim7882 is significant coverage, and they don't look to me like reliable sources either.
228:
1503:
defines Self-published as things where there is no editorial process, I.E. they have published the article themselves (blogs are a good example of this). This doesn't mean they are affiliated in any way with the game or its makers.
1481:), I suggest you to contact them and ask them that directly. I am sure they will gladly inform you with precision. Regarding the voting-commenting system I mentioned, I am glad that I could help you realize that. Regards, --
741:
that comply with the needed requirements (at least two independent and unaffiliated reliable sources cover the subject). If that is the only reason why the nomination for deletion is still active, please consider this:
896:
The developers' and publishers' home pages. If, however, the official game site is housed on the developer or publishers pages that allows for obvious navigation to the main developer/publisher site, these may not be
1408:
again that the subject of this discussion was based on the existence of reliable third-party sources, which since they have been established, the voting-commenting system is now obsolete in this discussion. Regards,
1179:
and you will notice that these two sources comply with the requirements and are reliable. Therefore I, once again, thank you all for this discussion and kindly request you to withdraw the delete nomination. Regards,
184:
1425:
Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party
752:
belongs to a system that cannot be forged in its actual state. Please, feel free to register and fact-check the accuracy of the data presented there and compare with the actual content of this article. Regards,
745:
an article without third-party sources should not always be deleted. The article may merely be in an imperfect state, and someone may only need to find the appropriate sources to verify the subject's importance.
1682:
I don't see anything wrong with the GamerTell coverage - I didn't know that owned by a publisher. Looking at a few articles the editorial process seems to be in place and working well, too. I'd say it passes
455:
Onrpg isn't a reliable source, and the review itself is poorly-written and amateurish. The same thing goes for ahkong.net, which is an amateur blog written by a guy using a pseudonym. Articles must be based on
86:
52:, and I looked at all of them. But there are a few that point to reliable, third-party coverage of the game. Those reviews, coupled with this discussion, lead me to conclude the article should be kept.
1018:
by WikiProject Video games. It seems like everything out there is either trivial or a press release on an otherwise reliable site or a lengthy review on an unreliable site, none of which fit our needs.
998:. If 1-2 other decent articles that are reliable sources pop up, I'll change my vote. Hopefully you'll find more - I'm not opposed to keeping an article when it fits Knowledge (XXG) policy. --
1598:, I please ask you to not repeat the same arguments you have exposed before. As I replied to you earlier, they do not justify the questionability and unreliability of the sources according to
922:
I've removed your keep vote from your last comment. You've already noted to keep, and placing it multiple times is confusing to closing admins. Additionally the N4G link you provide goes to
279:
603:
there, only screenshots. BBPS appears to be a fairly small (and currently defunct) game review blog with no mention of their editorial policies, so we can't really consider them reliable.
1381:
self-published media, such as books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, that are largely not acceptable as sources
353:
The accusation and renomination for removal is unfounded, since third-party published sources are used, which are reliable and have reliable content. The content and references of the
1542:
enterprises produce articles without an editorial process associated to them, and they are somehow related to personal web sites or other personal publications, such as blogs. In the
1355:
417:
Where are the reliable sources? I've looked and haven't found any. As far as other articles go, feel free to send them through the deletion process. Discussion about other articles
1322:
explains the conditions under which we accept self-published sources. The two authors above lack the prior publishing history we want to see before we accept self-published works,
140:
1225:, words that you used as the basis of consensus on this subject. Since at the moment, the sources have been presented and justified, the consensus has been reached. Consensus is
734:"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article"
1740:(requires an account). So far the discussion seems quite civil and certainly isn't bringing any ill here - I'm merely logging this in case this AfD ever comes into question. --
685:, since they do not express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Therefore, the suggestion to
1149:, but the material discussed in here does not offend me in any way. However, I am concerned that you interpreted my words as an accusation. I made a reminder to all the
223:: non-notable browser game with no references based on reliable, third-party published sources. Deleted in May 2009 for the same reasons. I've checked sources using the
518:
178:
521:, is published by SPIL Games but the articles are often so poorly written I can't believe it has any editorial oversight. Some reliable sources now: A short piece at
81:
435:
Articles of similar and related content convey and support the existence of the remaining ones. The sources you are looking for are in the
References section (e.g.:
1223:"I just don't see a lot of coverage from established, reliable sources (...) so more would be needed to firmly establish notability (...) I wish the game the best"
330:
267:
865:
224:
1251:
I'm sorry - I'm genuinely confused - when were the sources given justified? Other than your comments above I don't see anyone justifying the sources. --
517:; does not provide attribution from reliable, independent publications. Britishindie.com, gamezig.com are self-published websites. Onrpg, as I discussed
1233:
has been reached, consensus has been reached. Again, the material of this discussion does not offend me in any way, thanks for your concern. Regards, --
1097:
rationale for one side or the other. If they were votes, we wouldn't comment after writing delete/redirect/keep. In regards to sourcing, please read
1833:- self-published sources are mentioned in the article, but there are also reliable third-party sources at this moment, as discussed above. Regards, --
1655:
1384:
297:
900:, I appreciate your external link removal edit and this information, but you also removed the developer site/blog which is not accessible through
973:. Definitely not someone with experience in the industry (of both gaming and journalism). Worth Playing has been deemed dubiously reliable
1132:- A decent written article, but it doesn't display notability. Try to get a few sources from sites that are written by paid professionals.
1070:
647:
285:
273:
1159:, the article is now notable, and the consensus to keep the article has been reached (not by previous votes or comments). In response to
550:. The new article describes in in a much more encyclopedic manner. A search for "Dead Frontier Review" yields many results, such as this
1575:
requires. Neither author is a game journalist by any stretch of the imagination. These are exactly the kind of sources that we consider
1819:
1815:
1794:
361:
placed on
Knowledge (XXG), with several years of being stub articles or/and having outdated references. Some examples are as follows:
1789:- not notable. Mostly self published sources and scant mentionings. Need direct coverage in reliable third party sources to meet the
17:
113:
108:
117:
1859:
1842:
1802:
1778:
1749:
1708:
1673:
1645:
1619:
1588:
1561:
1513:
1490:
1438:
1418:
1371:
1335:
1314:
1283:
1260:
1242:
1212:
1189:
1140:
1120:
1087:
1028:
1007:
960:
935:
913:
877:
802:
762:
717:
698:
633:
612:
590:
571:
538:
507:
469:
450:
430:
412:
345:
319:
256:
65:
1552:
in the
Knowledge (XXG) article. I thank you for your explanation, but my mind is very clear regarding this subject. Regards, --
864:
article is a reliable source, but it's just one paragraph, so more would be needed to firmly establish notability. Please see
500:
1761:, we appreciate your verification of the GamerTell coverage and also the contents of the official website/forum. A request to
100:
849:
199:
166:
1176:
1098:
1108:
985:
be used, but not to establish notability, as it's merely a press release, meaning that a developer/publisher wrote it.
974:
708:
No significance in any independent reliable source. None of the sources cited is of any use in establishing notability.
1874:
1295:
none of the arguments you exposed now are significant to determine the unreliability or questionability of the sources
36:
1532:"Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field"
926:, which has no about us page and seems to be run by a single individual. It has no professionalism nor notability. --
1461:
self-published sources, since they belong to independent companies having no relation with the company representing
291:
1873:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1654:
Whilst I agree that
Brighthub and Helium should not be used, I wonder what you think of the Gamertell coverage?
861:
845:
676:
559:
522:
160:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1478:
1397:
923:
743:
732:
944:
Thanks for your note, I have already placed new references, you may be interested in some of them due to the
1737:
379:
58:
1828:
1633:
726:
1811:
1798:
749:
713:
586:
156:
1387:
1296:
1154:
1055:
547:
1855:
1669:
1434:
1367:
1331:
534:
231:) and found nothing but press releases, forum posts, and reviews from unreliable sites. The article was
1807:
890:
1692:
1584:
1279:
1024:
978:
798:
608:
465:
426:
315:
252:
206:
1834:
1770:
1611:
1602:. I may inform you that other well known websites do not require one to be a game journalist (e.g.:
1553:
1482:
1410:
1306:
1292:
1234:
1181:
1172:
1079:
952:
905:
754:
690:
682:
457:
442:
404:
145:
1838:
1774:
1615:
1557:
1486:
1414:
1310:
1238:
1185:
1083:
956:
909:
758:
694:
493:
446:
408:
396:
192:
1229:, so no person is able to deem a group's opinion or position alone. Using your words above, since
240:
236:
629:
567:
104:
53:
1661:
894:
49:
689:
the article and add more sources with reliable content is welcomed and appreciated. Regards, --
1830:"you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist"
1745:
1704:
1641:
1543:
1509:
1390:
1299:
1256:
1208:
1157:
1116:
1058:
1003:
949:
931:
873:
709:
582:
341:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
232:
1851:
1665:
1466:
1430:
1401:
1363:
1327:
667:
651:
530:
1790:
1599:
1548:
1527:
1500:
1393:
1376:
1319:
837:
662:. This source was not the result of a self-promoted action, since the site is dedicated to
418:
216:
172:
1595:
1580:
1288:
1275:
1020:
825:
794:
659:
604:
461:
422:
311:
248:
1766:
1684:
821:
817:
789:. The policies and guidelines you're referencing are more about articles for which there
555:
458:
reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy
439:
1469:, are asking for more articles of the authors of the respective articles, you can visit
1153:
in this topic, to consider that since two reliable sources are embedded in the article:
868:
for more info. I wish the game the best, but it needs coverage by the professionals. --
486:
1688:
1607:
1572:
1474:
1274:
the work of professional game journalists you would find from a reliable publication.
786:
782:
728:
Knowledge (XXG)'s concept of notability (...) avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics
526:
220:
1462:
1162:
1135:
738:
671:
643:
625:
563:
400:
392:
354:
96:
71:
1758:
1741:
1700:
1637:
1523:
1505:
1470:
1383:, which have nothing to do with the three already embedded sources in the article:
1302:
1252:
1204:
1168:
1146:
1112:
999:
927:
886:
869:
529:
that at the time of writing is a broken link - I don't know how significant it is.
337:
969:
The BrightHub article looked promising at first, then I clicked on the author and
134:
646:
article was temporarily in my personal page in order to process the request from
551:
395:
article may had had, has no weight in this matter. Also, recommend undeletion of
853:
679:
525:
that could be used to verify the game for the "List of" articles. An article at
384:
777:. In fact, this article shouldn't have been created in the first place without
391:
Therefore, the renomination for deletion based on old content/sources that the
1050:
1014:
In addition to
Teancum's comments, both N4G and BBGSite have been found to be
369:
970:
816:(changed, see below) - unfortunately I just don't see a lot of coverage from
1171:
suggested before, I suggest you to please remind yourself of the content of
485:, per nom. I had marked this as speedy G11 while it was still in userspace.
986:
1358:
and list there, citing Rock, Paper, Shotgun. Although I'm still fine with
793:
reliable sources but which happen not to be in the article at the moment.
841:
436:
374:
1699:
now. I'll nominate GamerTell as a permanent reliable source shortly. --
995:
856:
is also an unreliable source. The N4G article points to a dead link at
364:
358:
1203:
experience in editing Knowledge (XXG) and finding reliable sources. --
595:
MMOHut has been found by WikiProject Video games to be a specifically
989:
links to a guide to the game, and not journalistic coverage. Again,
681:
are not questionable sources, or self-published sources according to
235:
due to repeat recreations but was unsalted and recreated today via
857:
829:
663:
1867:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1060:
are complying sources that fulfill the requirements and not the
1658:
833:
781:, third-party published sources as it's a requirement of our
1606:) in order to write games' reviews, nor the Knowledge (XXG)
1535:
1450:
773:
to delete this article without third-party sources, but we
1762:
1603:
1539:
1454:
824:
is a wordpress blog with no professional staff of note,
1356:
List of massively multiplayer online role-playing games
304:
130:
126:
122:
1769:, which hopefully, soon will be displayed. Regards, --
546:, previous AfD discussion appears to be more based on
191:
1850:(!vote changed, again!) based on GamerTell coverage.
1765:
was also made in order to provide a review for their
648:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests_for_undeletion#Dead_Frontier
1227:
an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole
893:. More reviews from third-party sources were added.
87:
Articles for deletion/Dead Frontier (2nd nomination)
205:
1231:the majority thought in accordance with guidelines
1073:, the keep/delete/etc. vote system serves only to
599:source. GameSpot is reliable, but there's no real
889:, the NG4 link you checked was the wrong one, so
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1877:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1534:, I hope you are not suggesting that the entire
1632:reliability. Besides, the principle of saying
866:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Video games/Sources
268:list of video game related deletion discussions
1657:Gamertell is now owned by a publishing company
848:is also a blog with no editors of note, as is
8:
737:. This happens and there are sources in the
1691:. Between that and the little coverage on
1111:has been deemed unreliable by consensus. --
1377:Knowledge (XXG):SPS#Self-published_sources
331:list of Games-related deletion discussions
325:
48:. There are many refs here to sources on
1736:- DF users are discussing the situation
1293:Knowledge (XXG):SOURCES#Reliable_sources
1173:Knowledge (XXG):SOURCES#Reliable_sources
683:Knowledge (XXG):SOURCES#Reliable_sources
329:: This debate has been included in the
296:
266:: This debate has been included in the
225:WikiProject Video games guide to sources
79:
1107:- as Wyatt Riot already pointed out,
556:this (admittedly small) gamespot page
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
82:Articles for deletion/Dead Frontier
78:
1071:Knowledge (XXG) is not a democracy
994:described on the parent company's
302:
24:
1392:. You may also have noticed from
1291:, I remind you that according to
1429:didn't realise we employed one.
1827:Please, this has been debated:
1362:if that helps reach concensus.
750:Dead Frontier Statistics Center
666:. The game reviews provided by
357:article surpass several of the
290:
1465:or the game's author. If you,
860:, another wordpress blog. The
1:
818:established, reliable sources
284:
66:21:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
1860:11:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
1843:08:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
1803:00:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
1779:13:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
1750:04:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
1709:12:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
1674:08:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
1646:04:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
1628:Sites such as GameSpot have
1620:00:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
1589:23:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
1562:22:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
1514:21:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
1491:20:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
1439:19:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
1419:12:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
1372:20:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
1336:20:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
1315:19:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
1284:19:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
1261:21:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
1243:16:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
1213:23:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
1190:18:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
1141:02:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
1121:22:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
1104:reliable, published sources,
1088:22:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
1029:19:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
1008:18:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
961:17:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
936:17:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
914:17:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
878:16:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
803:19:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
763:16:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
718:13:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
699:13:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
664:independent game development
634:11:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
613:19:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
591:13:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
572:08:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
539:08:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
508:06:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
470:03:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
451:03:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
431:03:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
413:03:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
346:03:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
320:01:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
278:
257:01:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
1660:. Hasn't been discussed at
1479:Knowledge (XXG):Third_party
1398:Knowledge (XXG):Third_party
1145:I appreciate your concern,
272:
1894:
1636:isn't a valid argument. --
1499:You're confusing the term
1101:which states they must be
1054:Knowledge (XXG) policies,
948:page you mentioned (e.g.:
658:having, at that time, one
419:really doesn't belong here
1687:, and certainly provides
1475:Lynda Mc Donald's profile
1471:Wayne K. Wilkins' profile
844:is an unreliable source,
731:, which is not the case:
229:WPVG custom Google search
1870:Please do not modify it.
858:everythingforgamers.info
769:It's true that we don't
650:, which was accepted by
32:Please do not modify it.
891:here is the updated one
380:Tales of Eternia Online
241:WP:REFUND#Dead Frontier
838:Self-published sources
77:AfDs for this article:
1820:few or no other edits
1608:verification policies
1167:vote and comment, as
1822:outside this topic.
1695:I'm leaning towards
1693:Rock, Paper, Shotgun
1689:significant coverage
1301:. As I explained to
1221:Quoting your words:
862:Rock, Paper, Shotgun
830:jaggedbladegames.com
245:deletion and salting
1573:verification policy
1394:Knowledge (XXG):SPS
1177:WP:Reliable sources
1099:WP:Reliable sources
787:notability policies
642:The content of the
399:and redirection to
1767:Dead Frontier page
1634:other stuff exists
1544:Bright Hub article
1349:Changing !vote to
1075:test for consensus
902:obvious navigation
739:References section
660:third-party source
44:The result was
1823:
348:
334:
322:
1885:
1872:
1805:
1046:expertize factor
834:deadfrontier.com
656:
505:
498:
491:
335:
309:
308:
307:
300:
294:
288:
282:
276:
262:
210:
209:
195:
148:
138:
120:
63:
56:
34:
1893:
1892:
1888:
1887:
1886:
1884:
1883:
1882:
1881:
1875:deletion review
1868:
1166:
1139:
1069:in this topic,
813:Delete and salt
652:
501:
494:
487:
483:Delete and Salt
303:
271:
227:(including the
152:
144:
111:
95:
92:
75:
59:
54:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1891:
1889:
1880:
1879:
1863:
1862:
1845:
1784:
1783:
1782:
1781:
1753:
1752:
1730:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1726:
1725:
1724:
1723:
1722:
1721:
1720:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1677:
1676:
1649:
1648:
1623:
1622:
1565:
1564:
1517:
1516:
1494:
1493:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1374:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1246:
1245:
1216:
1215:
1193:
1192:
1160:
1143:
1133:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1091:
1090:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1011:
1010:
964:
963:
951:). Regards, --
939:
938:
917:
916:
881:
880:
808:
807:
806:
805:
766:
765:
721:
720:
702:
701:
639:
638:
637:
636:
618:
617:
616:
615:
593:
575:
574:
541:
510:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
441:). Regards, --
389:
388:
387:
382:
377:
372:
367:
350:
349:
323:
213:
212:
149:
146:Afd statistics
91:
90:
89:
84:
76:
74:
69:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1890:
1878:
1876:
1871:
1865:
1864:
1861:
1857:
1853:
1849:
1846:
1844:
1840:
1836:
1832:
1831:
1826:
1825:
1824:
1821:
1817:
1813:
1809:
1804:
1800:
1796:
1792:
1788:
1780:
1776:
1772:
1768:
1764:
1760:
1757:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1751:
1747:
1743:
1739:
1735:
1732:
1731:
1710:
1706:
1702:
1698:
1694:
1690:
1686:
1681:
1680:
1679:
1678:
1675:
1671:
1667:
1663:
1659:
1656:
1653:
1652:
1651:
1650:
1647:
1643:
1639:
1635:
1631:
1627:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1621:
1617:
1613:
1610:. Regards, --
1609:
1605:
1601:
1597:
1594:
1593:
1592:
1591:
1590:
1586:
1582:
1578:
1574:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1563:
1559:
1555:
1550:
1545:
1541:
1537:
1533:
1529:
1525:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1515:
1511:
1507:
1502:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1492:
1488:
1484:
1480:
1476:
1472:
1468:
1464:
1463:Dead Frontier
1460:
1456:
1452:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1440:
1436:
1432:
1427:
1426:publications.
1422:
1421:
1420:
1416:
1412:
1407:
1403:
1399:
1395:
1391:
1388:
1385:
1382:
1378:
1375:
1373:
1369:
1365:
1361:
1357:
1353:
1352:
1347:
1346:
1337:
1333:
1329:
1325:
1321:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1297:
1294:
1290:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1272:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1165:
1164:
1158:
1155:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1142:
1138:
1137:
1131:
1130:Delete/Userfy
1128:
1127:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1105:
1100:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1063:
1059:
1056:
1052:
1047:
1042:
1041:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1017:
1013:
1012:
1009:
1005:
1001:
997:
992:
988:
984:
980:
976:
972:
971:got their bio
968:
967:
966:
965:
962:
958:
954:
950:
947:
943:
942:
941:
940:
937:
933:
929:
925:
924:gamer4eva.com
921:
920:
919:
918:
915:
911:
907:
904:. Regards, --
903:
899:
898:
892:
888:
885:
884:
883:
882:
879:
875:
871:
867:
863:
859:
855:
851:
847:
843:
839:
835:
831:
827:
823:
822:British Indie
819:
815:
814:
810:
809:
804:
800:
796:
792:
788:
784:
780:
776:
772:
768:
767:
764:
760:
756:
751:
747:
746:
740:
736:
735:
730:
729:
725:
724:
723:
722:
719:
715:
711:
707:
704:
703:
700:
696:
692:
688:
684:
680:
677:
673:
669:
665:
661:
657:
655:
649:
645:
644:Dead Frontier
641:
640:
635:
631:
627:
622:
621:
620:
619:
614:
610:
606:
602:
598:
594:
592:
588:
584:
579:
578:
577:
576:
573:
569:
565:
561:
557:
553:
549:
545:
542:
540:
536:
532:
528:
524:
520:
516:
515:
511:
509:
506:
504:
499:
497:
492:
490:
484:
481:
480:
471:
467:
463:
459:
454:
453:
452:
448:
444:
440:
437:
434:
433:
432:
428:
424:
420:
416:
415:
414:
410:
406:
402:
401:Dead Frontier
398:
397:Dead frontier
394:
393:Dead Frontier
390:
386:
383:
381:
378:
376:
373:
371:
368:
366:
363:
362:
360:
356:
355:Dead Frontier
352:
351:
347:
343:
339:
332:
328:
324:
321:
317:
313:
306:
299:
293:
287:
281:
275:
269:
265:
261:
260:
259:
258:
254:
250:
246:
243:). Recommend
242:
238:
234:
230:
226:
222:
218:
208:
204:
201:
198:
194:
190:
186:
183:
180:
177:
174:
171:
168:
165:
162:
158:
155:
154:Find sources:
150:
147:
142:
136:
132:
128:
124:
119:
115:
110:
106:
102:
98:
97:Dead Frontier
94:
93:
88:
85:
83:
80:
73:
72:Dead Frontier
70:
68:
67:
64:
62:
57:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1869:
1866:
1847:
1829:
1808:74.198.9.141
1795:74.198.9.141
1786:
1785:
1733:
1696:
1629:
1576:
1531:
1526:, regarding
1458:
1457:sources are
1424:
1405:
1380:
1359:
1350:
1348:
1323:
1230:
1226:
1222:
1161:
1150:
1134:
1129:
1103:
1102:
1074:
1066:
1061:
1045:
1015:
990:
982:
979:Gamer's Hell
945:
901:
895:
812:
811:
790:
783:verification
778:
774:
770:
744:
733:
727:
710:JamesBWatson
705:
686:
653:
600:
596:
583:JamesBWatson
548:WP:GAMEGUIDE
543:
513:
512:
502:
495:
488:
482:
326:
263:
244:
214:
202:
196:
188:
181:
175:
169:
163:
153:
60:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1852:Marasmusine
1818:) has made
1666:Marasmusine
1630:established
1530:, firstly:
1467:Marasmusine
1431:Marasmusine
1402:Marasmusine
1364:Marasmusine
1328:Marasmusine
850:gamezig.com
846:thebbps.com
668:Marasmusine
654:HJ Mitchell
560:this review
531:Marasmusine
514:Weak Delete
385:Wurm Online
179:free images
1596:Wyatt Riot
1581:Wyatt Riot
1577:unreliable
1536:Bright Hub
1451:Bright Hub
1289:Wyatt Riot
1276:Wyatt Riot
1051:Urban Dead
1021:Wyatt Riot
1016:unreliable
897:necessary.
854:MMOhut.com
826:ahkong.net
795:Wyatt Riot
605:Wyatt Riot
597:unreliable
462:Wyatt Riot
423:Wyatt Riot
370:Dreamlords
312:Wyatt Riot
249:Wyatt Riot
1835:WizTheDoc
1771:WizTheDoc
1612:WizTheDoc
1554:WizTheDoc
1483:WizTheDoc
1411:WizTheDoc
1324:if at all
1307:WizTheDoc
1235:WizTheDoc
1182:WizTheDoc
1080:WizTheDoc
996:jobs page
953:WizTheDoc
906:WizTheDoc
755:WizTheDoc
691:WizTheDoc
443:WizTheDoc
405:WizTheDoc
338:• Gene93k
237:WP:REFUND
1816:contribs
1763:GameSpot
1662:WP:VG/RS
1604:GameSpot
1351:Redirect
946:about us
779:reliable
672:Tlim7882
626:Tlim7882
564:Tlim7882
375:Darkeden
141:View log
55:Krakatoa
50:WP:VG/RS
1759:Teancum
1742:Teancum
1701:Teancum
1638:Teancum
1524:Teancum
1506:Teancum
1423:Quote:
1303:Teancum
1253:Teancum
1205:Teancum
1169:Teancum
1147:Teancum
1113:Teancum
1109:BBGsite
1000:Teancum
987:BBGsite
977:. The
928:Teancum
887:Teancum
870:Teancum
601:content
365:Zhengtu
359:MMORPGs
247:again.
185:WP refs
173:scholar
114:protect
109:history
1791:WP:GNG
1787:delete
1600:WP:SPS
1549:WP:SPS
1540:Helium
1528:WP:SPS
1522:Again
1501:WP:SPS
1455:Helium
1406:voters
1360:delete
1320:WP:SPS
1151:voters
1067:voters
775:should
706:Delete
552:review
233:salted
217:WP:WEB
215:Fails
157:Google
118:delete
1685:WP:RS
1664:yet.
1163:Blake
1136:Blake
1062:needs
991:maybe
981:link
842:onRPG
239:(see
200:JSTOR
161:books
143:) •
135:views
127:watch
123:links
61:Katie
16:<
1856:talk
1848:Keep
1839:talk
1812:talk
1799:talk
1775:talk
1746:talk
1738:here
1734:Note
1705:talk
1697:Keep
1670:talk
1642:talk
1616:talk
1585:talk
1558:talk
1538:and
1510:talk
1487:talk
1473:and
1453:and
1449:The
1435:talk
1415:talk
1396:and
1389:and
1379:are
1368:talk
1332:talk
1311:talk
1298:and
1280:talk
1257:talk
1239:talk
1209:talk
1186:talk
1175:and
1156:and
1117:talk
1084:talk
1057:and
1025:talk
1004:talk
975:here
957:talk
932:talk
910:talk
874:talk
836:are
832:and
799:talk
785:and
771:have
759:talk
714:talk
695:talk
687:Keep
678:and
670:and
630:talk
609:talk
587:talk
568:talk
558:and
544:Keep
535:talk
519:here
466:talk
447:talk
438:and
427:talk
409:talk
403:. --
342:talk
327:Note
316:talk
305:Talk
264:Note
253:talk
221:WP:V
219:and
193:FENS
167:news
131:logs
105:talk
101:edit
46:keep
1459:not
1354:to
983:can
852:.
820:.
791:are
562:--
527:n4g
523:RPS
503:Dat
496:Wuz
489:Wuh
336:--
270:. (
207:TWL
139:– (
1858:)
1841:)
1814:•
1806:—
1801:)
1793:.
1777:)
1748:)
1707:)
1672:)
1644:)
1618:)
1587:)
1579:.
1560:)
1512:)
1504:--
1489:)
1437:)
1417:)
1409:--
1400:,
1386:,
1370:)
1334:)
1326:.
1313:)
1282:)
1259:)
1241:)
1211:)
1188:)
1180:--
1119:)
1086:)
1078:--
1027:)
1006:)
959:)
934:)
912:)
876:)
840:,
828:,
801:)
761:)
753:--
716:)
697:)
632:)
624:--
611:)
589:)
570:)
554:,
537:)
468:)
460:.
449:)
429:)
421:.
411:)
344:)
333:.
318:)
310:)
298:RS
255:)
187:)
133:|
129:|
125:|
121:|
116:|
112:|
107:|
103:|
1854:(
1837:(
1810:(
1797:(
1773:(
1744:(
1703:(
1668:(
1640:(
1614:(
1583:(
1556:(
1508:(
1485:(
1433:(
1413:(
1366:(
1330:(
1309:(
1278:(
1255:(
1237:(
1207:(
1184:(
1115:(
1082:(
1023:(
1002:(
955:(
930:(
908:(
872:(
797:(
757:(
712:(
693:(
628:(
607:(
585:(
566:(
533:(
464:(
445:(
425:(
407:(
340:(
314:(
301:·
295:·
292:S
289:·
286:B
283:·
280:N
277:·
274:G
251:(
211:)
203:·
197:·
189:·
182:·
176:·
170:·
164:·
159:(
151:(
137:)
99:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.