367:
of the site. I have removed what looked like guide info and it is much more neutral. I removed all "you" references and replaced with "the user". My intention is not to promote but to inform. We are not schooled in encyclopedic writing. We are encouraged to use writing forms that are not accepted here. I have been searching for criteria to help me in my wording of this page, guidelines in what is appropriate and what in not. This is a very large site and finding what we need is not always easy. The use of layman's terms should be encouraged on the guide pages for understanding what we find in not always obvious. The only person I have found to be helpful in the least is
371:. Writing a wiki page on internet video games with all of the criteria demanded here is not as easy as it may seem. Online video games are not documented in the same way as computer or console games. The fact that the industry does not cover these games as intensively should not affect their importance. How can a game that has survived 6 years on today's market not be notable. I have every intention to bring this page to standards. This will be achieved more promptly with help then hindrance. (this is from my post on talk page)
680:- Somebody that doesnt regularly edit it should cut it all down and rewrite it based on the references. Most of the "Gameplay", "Social Systems", and "Other Game Features/Systems" mini sections needs to get merged into a summarized paragraph or two. Wikipeida isnt a gameguide, but this is somewhat notable. It has an ok Development section.
366:
Have you even looked at the page since yesterday I come in everyday to tweak it. I have put many hours into this page. It has changed a lot and yes it still needs work but I do not think it is fair for you to attack it. Would in not be more productive to explain what is wrong. Video Games are a part
601:
Sure: It's not really a !vote (that is, it's not actionable) so much as it is a comment that the article is in really bad shape and could stand to be trimmed down to the essentials plus what the sources will support. For instance, I wouldn't devote a whole section to equipment customization unless
656:– as far as "not being schooled in encyclopedic writing" is concerned, here's how I personally approach articles. Approach them like you're writing an essay for school. Follow all the basic English, grammar, and usage rules that you know so far, skim over Knowledge (XXG)'s
248:— How can a game that has been translated into several different languages & has articles on several different language wiki's, not be notable? There are several sources, all within the article. The promotional tone is being worked on & has in general improved.
635:
and overdetailed minutiae) and can probably be removed. Hopefully, someone can step up—preferably someone good enough to be able to write in a more professional and formal manner than what I see right now—and take charge of this article (hence, the
397:
If the subject is notable, which it is, then COI, promotional and sourcing are all reasons for clean-up, not deletion, in my opinion. We wouldn't delete an article on
Microsoft just because it contained promotional aspects. We would fix it.
472:
I think the best point made is that alot of PC games that are not heard in mainstream media. Myself I consider IGN a reliable source and I think mource sourcing would be ideal but it is enough to stand on it's own.
102:
437:. Google search for "flyff" results in over 3million results (even though a lot of them are game money selling sites). Hell according to xfire stats, it's the currently the 42nd highest played game right now.
295:. The fact that after two prior AfDs the "article" is still basically a fluffy gamers guide with grossly excessive gaming information and in-universe narrative reflects the COI interests of primary author
196:
92:
87:
488:
Agreed. I'm not saying this is a perfect article, it just needs some work, by citing more & cleaning up. And really more & more people are working on this article now, than just
157:
413:
I don't consider those (mostly regurgitated press releases) to constitute substantial coverage in reliable sources. You don't agree, okay; but don't accuse me of doing no research. --
97:
291:
AFC is a process whereby a neutral third party is asked to create an article, based on some evidence of notability. "The DMs asked me to write this" evidences some strong
252:
has not been the only person editing the article, sure they provided the majority of the info. How is being asked to write an article by someone any different that
323:
190:
529:
627:– there's awards there and some coverage by multiple reliable sources, asserting notability. However, I have to agree that the vast majority of the
82:
404:
551:
660:
as far as layout and structure is concerned, and look at examples from other well-written video game articles out there. It's like in
17:
393:
602:
it's a substantial part of the game and/or the explanation is necessary to give context to a later piece of e.g. reception.
49:
511:
455:
277:
256:? This article has been changed in the passed & was keep every other time it has been listed under the article name
60:
733:
36:
718:
702:
688:
668:
644:
611:
596:
582:
565:
541:
516:
482:
460:
425:
407:
380:
355:
338:
311:
282:
239:
65:
211:
478:
351:
710:. As per above - runescape has a page why cant this? Besides all you need is to fix it up a bit and Itll be fine.
178:
130:
125:
732:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
134:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
117:
632:
492:. He just got the ball rolling & has provided a nice large, but still rough foundation. I do applaud
697:
474:
347:
334:
172:
573:, using available reliable sources. The only content worth keeping in there right now is the infobox.
420:
400:
306:
234:
227:
Non-notable online game; no sources, promotional tone, COI ("the DM asked me to write this article")
592:
376:
204:
168:
665:
641:
496:
on all his hard work, especially since it his first very large contribution to
Knowledge (XXG).
537:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
218:
712:
607:
578:
507:
451:
330:
273:
58:
657:
292:
253:
561:
414:
300:
228:
435:
588:
493:
489:
372:
296:
249:
438:
683:
664:—if you know how to write an essay, you know how to write an encyclopedic article.
533:
391:
184:
433:
151:
388:: I agree that Flyff is notable. It gets mentioned in several gaming news sites:
603:
574:
500:
444:
266:
53:
557:
121:
431:
395:
389:
554:
346::Delete. Per nom. How many times will this discussion take place?
258:
113:
71:
726:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
631:
in the page is not appropriate for an encyclopedia (i.e.
103:
Articles for deletion/Flyff Quest Guide (2nd nomination)
147:
143:
139:
203:
440:
I still fail to see how this is not a notable game.
217:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
736:). No further edits should be made to this page.
530:list of video game related deletion discussions
8:
93:Articles for deletion/Flyff (3rd nomination)
88:Articles for deletion/Flyff (2nd nomination)
318:
324:list of Game-related deletion discussions
550:The IGN story cited in the article plus
528:: This debate has been included in the
322:: This debate has been included in the
98:Articles for deletion/Flyff Quest Guide
80:
556:provide enough sourcing to meet WP:N.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
78:
24:
430:More links to reliable sources
719:07:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
703:18:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
689:01:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
669:22:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
645:22:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
612:02:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
597:23:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
583:15:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
566:14:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
542:13:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
517:01:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
483:01:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
461:21:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
426:18:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
408:17:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
381:13:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
356:02:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
339:02:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
312:01:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
283:22:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
240:21:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
66:15:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
1:
587:Can you explain your !vote?
83:Articles for deletion/Flyff
753:
729:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
77:AfDs for this article:
293:conflict of interest
633:game guide material
717:
44:The result was
711:
571:Scrap and rewrite
544:
519:
514:
463:
458:
341:
327:
285:
280:
50:non-admin closure
744:
731:
715:
700:
524:
515:
506:
497:
475:Hell In A Bucket
459:
450:
441:
423:
417:
348:Hell In A Bucket
328:
309:
303:
281:
272:
263:
237:
231:
222:
221:
207:
155:
137:
34:
752:
751:
747:
746:
745:
743:
742:
741:
740:
734:deletion review
727:
713:
698:
687:
658:Manual of Style
498:
442:
421:
415:
403:
307:
301:
264:
235:
229:
164:
128:
112:
109:
107:
75:
63:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
750:
748:
739:
738:
722:
721:
705:
691:
681:
674:
673:
672:
671:
648:
647:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
568:
545:
521:
520:
467:
466:
465:
464:
399:
364:
363:
343:
342:
316:
315:
314:
225:
224:
161:
108:
106:
105:
100:
95:
90:
85:
79:
76:
74:
69:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
749:
737:
735:
730:
724:
723:
720:
716:
709:
706:
704:
701:
695:
692:
690:
686:
685:
679:
676:
675:
670:
667:
663:
659:
655:
652:
651:
650:
649:
646:
643:
639:
634:
630:
626:
622:
619:
613:
609:
605:
600:
599:
598:
594:
590:
586:
585:
584:
580:
576:
572:
569:
567:
563:
559:
555:
552:
549:
546:
543:
539:
535:
531:
527:
523:
522:
518:
513:
509:
504:
503:
495:
491:
487:
486:
485:
484:
480:
476:
471:
462:
457:
453:
448:
447:
439:
436:
434:
432:
429:
428:
427:
424:
418:
412:
411:
410:
409:
406:
402:
396:
394:
392:
390:
387:
383:
382:
378:
374:
370:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
353:
349:
340:
336:
332:
325:
321:
317:
313:
310:
304:
298:
294:
290:
287:
286:
284:
279:
275:
270:
269:
261:
260:
255:
251:
247:
244:
243:
242:
241:
238:
232:
220:
216:
213:
210:
206:
202:
198:
195:
192:
189:
186:
183:
180:
177:
174:
170:
167:
166:Find sources:
162:
159:
153:
149:
145:
141:
136:
132:
127:
123:
119:
115:
111:
110:
104:
101:
99:
96:
94:
91:
89:
86:
84:
81:
73:
70:
68:
67:
64:
59:
57:
56:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
728:
725:
707:
693:
682:
677:
661:
653:
637:
628:
624:
620:
570:
553:and perhaps
547:
525:
501:
469:
468:
445:
385:
384:
368:
365:
345:
344:
319:
288:
267:
257:
245:
226:
214:
208:
200:
193:
187:
181:
175:
165:
54:
45:
43:
31:
28:
714:Fattyjwoods
416:Orange Mike
331:Ron Ritzman
302:Orange Mike
230:Orange Mike
191:free images
662:Dodgeball
589:Joe Chill
494:Jasenm222
490:Jasenm222
373:Jasenm222
297:Jasenm222
250:Jasenm222
699:Pedro J.
666:MuZemike
642:MuZemike
158:View log
654:Comment
640:part).
638:cleanup
629:content
625:cleanup
534:MrKIA11
197:WP refs
185:scholar
131:protect
126:history
604:Nifboy
575:Nifboy
502:ɠu¹ɖяy
446:ɠu¹ɖяy
369:ɠu¹ɖяy
268:ɠu¹ɖяy
254:WP:AFC
169:Google
135:delete
55:MacMed
684:Blake
558:Hobit
470:Keep.
289:reply
259:Flyff
212:JSTOR
173:books
152:views
144:watch
140:links
114:Flyff
72:Flyff
62:stalk
16:<
708:Keep
696:. --
694:Keep
678:Keep
623:and
621:Keep
608:talk
593:talk
579:talk
562:talk
548:Keep
538:talk
526:Note
479:talk
422:Talk
386:Keep
377:talk
352:talk
335:talk
320:Note
308:Talk
299:. --
246:Keep
236:Talk
205:FENS
179:news
148:logs
122:talk
118:edit
46:keep
419:|
329:--
305:|
233:|
219:TWL
156:– (
48:. (
610:)
595:)
581:)
564:)
540:)
532:.
510:•
481:)
454:•
401:Me
379:)
362:NO
354:)
337:)
326:.
276:•
199:)
150:|
146:|
142:|
138:|
133:|
129:|
124:|
120:|
52:)
606:(
591:(
577:(
560:(
536:(
512:¢
508:¤
505:」
499:「
477:(
456:¢
452:¤
449:」
443:「
405:t
375:(
350:(
333:(
278:¢
274:¤
271:」
265:「
262:.
223:)
215:·
209:·
201:·
194:·
188:·
182:·
176:·
171:(
163:(
160:)
154:)
116:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.