670:: To last few replies. I don't see why the company linking to these sites removes their reputabilty (if that's a word). It's not like this is an article about them, and they'd have a reason to lie to make themselves look good. But even if those are thrown out, a yahoo search for ("endless online" mmorpg) turns up 17,000 results. Just after a few minutes browsing them, I'm sure there's enough validation in there. The simple fact remains, this article now has more citations than I've -ever- seen about a video game, with the exception of a couple extremely popular titles. I would also just like to point out again, I don't want anyone thinking I have a personal agenda or bias here. I don't play this game, and I've never even heard of it before this AfD. I just think that this article has well above-average content and information to find, compared to most other non-mainstream games. -
919:, as it's not even cited), and all use this highly dubious web site as a source for cast and crew information! Is there something in English language similar to Finnish National Filmography - a printed, peer-reviewed, comprehensive film reference that also has detailed plot summaries? (Cripes, we have to abandon our reputation as an instantly updated encyclopedia covering new happenings instantly - those tomes get published like every 5 years or so and are always 5 years late, or whatever!) We need to take a really great big broom and start nuking everything and everywhere! (the crowd goes "POINT well made!"). And then, after 5-10 years of waiting for the movie journal to complete their tedious work, prepare for the great question that really makes the difference:
868:
opinion on any of the information in the article, and given none of them have any reason to lie about it, let alone -all- of them lie about it, I see no reason not to believe it. Granted, self-published website may not be as widely reliable as say, a professional printed game guide, but web sites are quite commonly used as sources on wikipedia, not to mention I've seen way more errors in printed guides than I have on web sites of people who actually play the games themselves. And no, that doesn't mean every website should have an article, per notability, which this game certainly has.-
210:
in the game world can see." would fall under "makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge" - anyone who played the game would know this. While there are some facts on the page which would qualify, such as stating players motivations and feelings, and I agree should be removed, I feel there is sufficient content on the page verifiable from available sources that it should not be entirely deleted. They may not currently be cited, but there is a pretty good number of sources shown at
380:] actually says otherwise about the "no verifiable data." If we take the official site of a product and a product to be parts of the same entity, documenting claims a site made about itself is perfectly acceptable. Documentation of claims to the contrary, or documentation of lack of evidence, is also acceptable. Take a look at the page as it exists now; it's fairly heavily footnoted and contains links to other sources that review or provide legitimacy for Endless Online.
369:- Although many people think this should be kept, as I made point of in the discussion article, and as Messed Rocker has said before, things need to be verifiable via credible sources. Since this HAS NO VERIFIABLE DATA, it has no place on wikipedia. I play this game, and this is the last thing I want, but if wikipedia needs virification, and we can't give it, what else are we to do? DELETE IT.
915:; I obviously can't believe a single word about the plot, because the plot summary is completely unsourced. Further, the article cites a disreputable source (IMDB, a film database based on user submissions). And the most shocking thing is that this is not an isolated incident; articles frequently include plot summaries without providing any other source besides the movie themselves (
500:
amount of articles would have to be deleted. I looked around, and could not find a -single- article about a book, movie, or game that cited someone else when summarizing itself. If anything, they cited the book/movie/game itself, or it most cases, nothing at all, since it should be clear that's where
229:
I figured I might as well just go ahead and do it myself - I've cited nearly every part of the page from available sources, and removed some that seemed inherantly unverifiable. There's only one (citation needed) still remaining, but it could also probably be dealt with by someone who knows the game.
170:
As a comparion, think of a movie. A movie is also mostly 'graphics created for entertainment'. But certainly if someone watched a movie, then wrote an article about the movie summarizing it, this would not be original research - the movie itself provided the information. I see a game as no different.
823:
allows for the source itself to provide documentation about itself, so long as that information has not been challenged by a third party. We're not using the information to document claims about another person or party, and since a lot of the information in this article is fairly basic material, the
209:
In relation to this article in particular, a great deal of the facts on this article I found with little effort just looking at the link provided on the page to the official site, and surely many more such as "Endless Online features a global chat function which acts as a chat room that every player
852:
Otherwise you seem to suggest any website can be used as a reliable source on which to write an article about it, and thus every website should have an article. If that's true, I state here and now I want dibs on writing the article about my blog. You can source information from the primary source
887:
This isn't about who would know better; after all, who would know better what members are in an unsigned band of schoolkids? Knowledge (XXG) is not a guide to the internet, it is an encyclopedia, and as such, requires third party, reputable sources on which to base articles. If this article has
84:
will indicate that many websites refer to the game, however they are not that great as references and they all say the same thing. These clone references give a simple synopsis of the game, and not anything else noted in the article. References for all those other facts are not available. If this
123:
Information about a changing online game is never going to have a solid reference. Even much more popular games, which have major web sites and published guides - these are never as complete and up to date as the games themselves. I would contest the idea that a player who uses the game is doing
867:
I still don't see why the citations as listed are not reputable. Who, besides people who play the game and take the time to publish their own material on it, would know better? If you look through all the 3rd party sites, and the official site, they are all in agreement - there's no conflict of
139:
A game itself really can't be used as a source, in my opinion. It's not a document asserting facts with some level of evidence, it's an array of code and graphics created for entertainment. Experiencing them and then writing the experience on
Knowledge (XXG) would fall under original research:
394:
on the exact same grounds in the last AfD. I really don't think verifiability is a problem here. The way I see it, games and game publishers can be used as a source (and they'll undoubtedly be more than glad to provide information about their games!), that's just normal
140:
research not documented anywhere else. It's like saying a person is a reference because a person can listen to them and then write it down on
Knowledge (XXG). And if there can't be solid references for 80% of the page, then it breaks the fundamental verifiability rule. —
528:
The information published on the site itself isn't original research, and is actually in fact good references. There was insufficient source citing, and sources didn't seem probable. I remember reading the site, and I don't remember the information being there.
726:
some researcher go and conduct a methodical study of EO's player base? Now, you can ask these questions, and answer is a definite "maybe". Ask similar sort of questions about some crackpot scientific theory, and you get a definite "hell no, not even probable".
924:
I believe in verifiability just as much as everyone else. It's just that I believe the world isn't black and white (No movie reference work publication delay puns intended) and that verifiability is not necessary unless it is a matter where verifiability is
586:
There are quite a few 3rd party sources, just look at the links page on the game's official site - there's 15 or 20 external links there. As for them being reputable, I would say that their being listed by the game's creators is confirming their accuracy.
409:("256-color VGA graphics". There it is. I kid you not. I can provide a scan and I swear I won't modify it.) I can install the game and run it in DOSbox and by golly, it runs in 320x200 MCGA mode. This, however, would be Original Research: "
853:
itself, but it cannot be the entire content of the article. Knowledge (XXG) is not a business directory and
Knowledge (XXG) is a tertiary source, not a secondary source, which is what utilising only primary sources makes us.
888:
them, fair play, if not, well, sorry, but then it should be deleted. Knowledge (XXG) isn't the place to prove a topic's notability, it's a place to summarise it. If there is nothing to summarise, we can't have an article.
171:
An exception would be if the writing were not merely summarizing, but inferring, such as if a user came up with their own interpretation of a movie, and wrote the article about that. But mere description I feel is fair. -
910:
reputable third-party sources for each and every separate assertion in
Knowledge (XXG), you end up with a lot of work. A practical example where we end up with this logic would be this: Let's see, today I read about
201:
In response to this comment, just so I can understand, I'm not sure what you're referring to - this part seems to me to say it is ok. "Primary sources present information or data, such as archeological artifacts;
461:
to accept the game publisher as an accurate source of information, as they know best what the game is about. What we shouldn't allow them to do is to write the articles. The OR policy doesn't say anything about
206:
or photographs... Research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged." Where does it say not to do this?
262:
condition 3, and reference to a site in order to verify claims made by the site itself is acceptable. Coverage should be expanded, but that's a sign that it's a stub, not that it should be deleted.
706:
These rules are in
Knowledge (XXG) to stop crackpots from pushing their theories as undisputedly valid knowledge. The rules aren't meant to stop discussing cult fictional works - that's what
793:
Now that shouldn't mean stuff can't get added and then verified later, but given this article has existed since July 2005, surely that's ample time for people to find the sources they claim
505:
says right out that compiling info from primary sources is encouraged. Only if that info is used to draw new conclusions is it original research. If you stated that the protagonist in
688:
Here's just something for people to chew: Should the verifiability criteria put as the question "can verifiable third-party sources be found?", or the question "is there a
86:
602:
It is circular to verify information about a company or organization using links that the company provides as a justification for considering those sources reliable.
501:
it came from. Again, not for drawing new conclusions, but to say what the source itself says. I know two wrongs don't make a right, but I don't think they are wrong.
405:
runs in 320x200 MCGA graphics mode", I don't need a frigging game researcher to write that in a peer-reviewed paper before I can use that fact. It's written in the
411:
76:
that can be used, and it doesn't seem that they will ever come about. Until reliable references come about, most of the article will be original research, which
85:
article can't satisfy the fundamental verifiability and no-original-research rules, then they do not belong on
Knowledge (XXG). Note that this article has been
783:
the information can be added and the article exist are at odds with the policy. We could hypothetically bandy about coulds all day, but at the end of the day
769:
should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers.
710:
is for! What I'm seeing here is trying to delete a work by simply stacking charges: we're proposing the article's deletion as a matter of
214:, which I found from this article, which could easily do so. I'd reccommend cleanup, and citing these pages, but not outright deletion. -
789:
The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
17:
623:
541:
187:
152:
101:
1010:
990:
974:
952:
897:
878:
862:
832:
806:
742:
680:
662:
636:
606:
597:
581:
554:
523:
485:
384:
359:
346:
323:
291:
266:
240:
224:
196:
181:
165:
134:
114:
52:
692:
that verifiable third-party sources can be found?" It's almost like the question on
Original Research: "Are there sources?" vs. "
513:, it would be absurd to cite a book review that said so. The book is a verifiable and undeniable source for this information. -
490:
No you don't! I empathize with you. I don't want to delete it, but in the opinion of myself and MR, that is
Original Research.
850:
If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Knowledge (XXG) should not have an article on that topic.
570:
If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Knowledge (XXG) should not have an article on that topic.
696:
the statements be sourced?" I'm personally always leaning on the latter of these interpretations: It's not OR if something
1006:
948:
738:
481:
319:
875:
677:
594:
520:
237:
221:
178:
131:
1027:
427:: the player's relationship with the gameworld is affected by their choices. The game features plotlines and clicés of
36:
496:
This is what I was trying to say. And if an article about a primary source cannot use that source as a reference, a
447:
original research and op-edding. "New analysis and synthesis", schoolbook example of what's frigging underlined in
816:
1026:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
829:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
611:
Indeed. And there's something that doesn't seem right about calling fan sites "reputable reliable" sources. —
230:
I don't play it myself, but was able to find the rest just from the links given by the game's official page. -
81:
632:
550:
161:
110:
69:
65:
763:
are to be taken together as parts of a whole, and not to be applied separately. You also misunderstand
506:
435:
194:
49:
58:
825:
655:
381:
343:
263:
912:
797:
exist. I'll quite happily change my vote if reliable, reputable, third party sources are found.
654:, are nothing more than one paragraph entries, hence this game lacks 3rd party reliable sources.
652:
305:
1002:
944:
935:"Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources."
734:
626:
612:
544:
530:
477:
315:
186:
No, using the film/game itself as a source is most certainly original research as outlined in
155:
141:
104:
90:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
756:
893:
872:
858:
802:
674:
591:
577:
517:
287:
234:
218:
175:
128:
983:
760:
502:
448:
279:
259:
77:
191:
986:#3? It's hosted on its own domain and is not distributed by any well known entity... --
339:
300:
Why should it change your vote? This is not a web page, is it? Would you vote keep on "
930:
845:
812:
784:
764:
752:
722:
some notable blogger review this game, for example? (Probably, and may already have.)
718:
a reputable game magazine cover this game? (I'm guessing someone might already have.)
565:
73:
700:
be sourced to some work, it's
Verifiable if the primary source exists, and there's a
429:
356:
921:
what benefit would this new version have, exactly, over the version we already have?
997:
987:
971:
939:
729:
603:
472:
310:
301:
751:
You misunderstand the policies and what they are for, then. The three policies,
889:
869:
854:
798:
671:
588:
573:
514:
510:
491:
370:
355:
Google searches reveal there is a large amount of genuine interest in the site.
283:
231:
215:
172:
125:
466:, because if those are banned, we'd ban ourselves by definition. In closing, I
211:
417:
401:
423:
622:
540:
151:
100:
572:
If no third party reputable sources can be found, it should be deleted.
995:
Why are we applying WP:WEB on a software product in the first place? --
440:
124:
original research: the game is a source of information about itself. -
1020:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
704:
that some independent source will show up and verify the claims.
72:, this article doesn't belong on Knowledge (XXG). There are no
771:
Not facts that should be published, or will be published, but
929:. Some common sense, people. And now, my favorite quote from
906:
I still maintain that this is a slippery slope. If you start
651:. Whatever descriptions of the game Google turns up, such as
415:
is an example how the
Japanese are moving away from cloning
815:
again closely, particularly at the end in the section on
819:, you'll find that to document claims about an entity,
659:
282:
condition 3. That could change my vote if verifiable.
80:. Running "Endless Online" with the quotes through
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
714:. "You can't verify this." The way I see is this:
1030:). No further edits should be made to this page.
781:that verifiable third-party sources can be found
775:published. Your assertion that if there exists
970:please it meets web condition 3 and is notable
457:In order to provide accurate information, we
455:belongs to my game blog, not Knowledge (XXG).
8:
378:I'd like to point out, for the record, that
212:http://www.endless-online.com/links-fan.html
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
767:which quite clearly states articles
439:and marrying it with good doses of
188:Knowledge (XXG):No original research
399:research. For example, if I state "
24:
811:However, if you go back and read
470:I'll quit now. I suck. I know. --
621:
539:
464:New collections of sourced facts
150:
99:
824:claims as they stand are fine.
304:" if there's evidence it meets
1:
44:The result of the debate was
844:see my statement above that
70:Talk:Endless Online#Editting
982:per nom. How does it meet
1047:
486:18:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
433:series, game mechanics of
385:18:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
360:16:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
347:11:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
267:09:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
241:05:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
225:05:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
197:04:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
182:03:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
166:03:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
135:03:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
115:03:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
421:and going toward cloning
1023:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
1011:10:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
991:07:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
975:19:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
953:21:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
898:20:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
879:20:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
863:20:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
833:20:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
807:19:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
743:07:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
681:05:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
663:03:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
637:00:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
607:00:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
598:00:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
582:22:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
555:23:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
524:00:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
324:10:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
292:19:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
53:12:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
817:self-published sources
87:nominated for deletion
507:Crime and Punishment
436:Magic: the Gathering
338:per Captainktainer.
708:notability criteria
278:; How does it meet
66:Talk:Endless Online
896:
861:
842:Circular argument
805:
635:
629:
619:
615:
580:
553:
547:
537:
533:
290:
164:
158:
148:
144:
113:
107:
97:
93:
74:usable references
1038:
1025:
892:
857:
801:
631:
627:
625:
617:
613:
576:
549:
545:
543:
535:
531:
286:
160:
156:
154:
146:
142:
109:
105:
103:
95:
91:
64:As indicated on
34:
1046:
1045:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1028:deletion review
1021:
787:clearly states
302:Knowledge (XXG)
68:, particularly
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1044:
1042:
1033:
1032:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
977:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
955:
923:
901:
900:
882:
881:
865:
836:
835:
826:Captainktainer
809:
791:
746:
745:
705:
683:
665:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
559:
558:
557:
526:
494:
456:
389:
388:
387:
382:Captainktainer
363:
362:
350:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
295:
294:
270:
269:
264:Captainktainer
253:
252:
251:
250:
249:
248:
247:
246:
245:
244:
243:
207:
61:
59:Endless Online
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1043:
1031:
1029:
1024:
1018:
1017:
1012:
1008:
1004:
1000:
999:
994:
993:
992:
989:
985:
981:
978:
976:
973:
969:
966:
965:
954:
950:
946:
942:
941:
936:
932:
928:
922:
918:
914:
909:
905:
904:
903:
902:
899:
895:
891:
886:
885:
884:
883:
880:
877:
874:
871:
866:
864:
860:
856:
851:
847:
843:
840:
839:
838:
837:
834:
831:
827:
822:
818:
814:
810:
808:
804:
800:
796:
792:
790:
786:
782:
778:
774:
770:
766:
762:
758:
754:
750:
749:
748:
747:
744:
740:
736:
732:
731:
725:
721:
717:
713:
709:
703:
699:
695:
691:
687:
684:
682:
679:
676:
673:
669:
666:
664:
661:
657:
653:
650:
646:
638:
634:
630:
624:
620:
610:
609:
608:
605:
601:
600:
599:
596:
593:
590:
585:
584:
583:
579:
575:
571:
567:
563:
560:
556:
552:
548:
542:
538:
527:
525:
522:
519:
516:
512:
508:
504:
499:
495:
493:
489:
488:
487:
483:
479:
475:
474:
469:
465:
460:
454:
450:
446:
442:
438:
437:
432:
431:
430:Final Fantasy
426:
425:
420:
419:
414:
413:
408:
404:
403:
398:
393:
390:
386:
383:
379:
377:
374:
373:
372:
368:
365:
364:
361:
358:
354:
351:
349:
348:
345:
341:
337:
333:
332:
325:
321:
317:
313:
312:
307:
303:
299:
298:
297:
296:
293:
289:
285:
281:
277:
274:
273:
272:
271:
268:
265:
261:
257:
254:
242:
239:
236:
233:
228:
227:
226:
223:
220:
217:
213:
208:
205:
200:
199:
198:
195:
193:
189:
185:
184:
183:
180:
177:
174:
169:
168:
167:
163:
159:
153:
149:
138:
137:
136:
133:
130:
127:
122:
119:
118:
117:
116:
112:
108:
102:
98:
88:
83:
79:
78:isn't allowed
75:
71:
67:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1022:
1019:
996:
979:
967:
938:
934:
926:
920:
916:
907:
849:
841:
820:
794:
788:
780:
776:
772:
768:
728:
723:
719:
715:
712:technicality
711:
707:
701:
697:
693:
689:
685:
667:
648:
569:
561:
497:
471:
467:
463:
458:
452:
444:
434:
428:
422:
416:
412:Baten Kaitos
410:
406:
400:
397:encyclopedic
396:
391:
375:
366:
352:
335:
334:
309:
275:
255:
203:
120:
63:
50:Sam Blanning
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
913:Deep Impact
779:possibility
702:possibility
690:possibility
511:Raskolnikov
258:- It meets
204:film, video
917:presumably
647:Reluctant
443:Humour®."
418:Ultima III
402:Ultima VII
192:Sean Black
908:demanding
773:have been
509:is named
424:Ultima IV
407:game box.
340:Kimchi.sg
89:before. —
357:Bige1977
306:WP:MUSIC
276:Question
998:wwwwolf
988:Rory096
972:Yuckfoo
940:wwwwolf
848:states
757:WP:NPOV
730:wwwwolf
686:Comment
668:Comment
614:THIS IS
604:JoshuaZ
568:states
532:THIS IS
473:wwwwolf
441:BioWare
376:Comment
311:wwwwolf
143:THIS IS
92:THIS IS
1007:growls
984:WP:WEB
980:Delete
949:growls
927:needed
890:Hiding
870:Goldom
855:Hiding
799:Hiding
761:WP:NOR
739:growls
672:Goldom
656:Kimchi
649:delete
633:(TALK)
589:Goldom
574:Hiding
562:Delete
551:(TALK)
515:Goldom
503:WP:NOR
492:t.z0n3
482:growls
449:WP:NOR
445:That's
371:t.z0n3
367:Delete
320:growls
284:Hiding
280:WP:WEB
260:WP:WEB
232:Goldom
216:Goldom
173:Goldom
162:(TALK)
126:Goldom
111:(TALK)
82:Google
1003:barks
945:barks
795:could
735:barks
724:Could
720:Could
716:Could
628:OCKER
618:ESSED
546:OCKER
536:ESSED
478:barks
468:swear
316:barks
157:OCKER
147:ESSED
106:OCKER
96:ESSED
16:<
968:keep
931:WP:V
894:Talk
876:謚慕ｨｿ
873:莨夊ｩｱ
859:Talk
846:WP:V
830:Talk
821:WP:V
813:WP:V
803:Talk
785:WP:V
765:WP:V
759:and
753:WP:V
678:謚慕ｨｿ
675:莨夊ｩｱ
595:謚慕ｨｿ
592:莨夊ｩｱ
578:Talk
566:WP:V
521:謚慕ｨｿ
518:莨夊ｩｱ
498:huge
459:have
453:That
392:Keep
353:Keep
344:talk
336:Keep
308:? --
288:Talk
256:Keep
238:謚慕ｨｿ
235:莨夊ｩｱ
222:謚慕ｨｿ
219:莨夊ｩｱ
179:謚慕ｨｿ
176:莨夊ｩｱ
132:謚慕ｨｿ
129:莨夊ｩｱ
121:Keep
48:. --
698:can
694:Can
190:.--
1009:)
951:)
937:--
933::
828:*
777:a
755:,
741:)
727:--
660:sg
564:,
484:)
451:.
342:|
322:)
1005:/
1001:(
947:/
943:(
737:/
733:(
658:.
616:M
587:-
534:M
529:—
480:/
476:(
318:/
314:(
145:M
94:M
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
