817:- while I understand the efforts of the game's fan-base to establish an entry, there doesn't seem to be enough reliable third party sources to merit inclusion at this time. Perhaps, if they succeed in their quest to get the game reviewed/covered by independent sources, then it may merit inclusion in the future. In my opinion, the "Browser Game of the Year" award is not notable enough in itself to qualify the game for inclusion. I would be open to allowing the article to exist in the future, but I think that at this time it is
232:
556:
content. A search is bringing up none either. The browser game competition is of little concern when there are no standard sources to utilize. It certainly looks like the sort of game that will appeal to war enthusiasts, but the time to create an article is after reliable sources have covered it, not
345:
I recently took a look at this entry and hope to be able to find more, or at least better, sources. In common with many on-line games, there are numerous entries and reviews of the game on the web, but these are obviously not published sources, still less peer-reviewed, so in Wiki terms their value
367:
In my view the article is useful, not least because the game beautifully produced and is rare in on-line games in dealing intelligently with an historical conflict with a degree of realism. At this point, I would welcome your suggestions, given the difficulties you have raised, as to how best to
741:
While I suppose the tag can do no harm, would it not be more usual to introduce it into a discussion if there were actual evidence of contributions here by SPAs or puppets? Posting the link seems to imply that there is such activity but in fact that doesn't appear to be the case.
602:
there are numerous sources, the question is whether they are valid, but by online standards they seem good enough. And as noted above it is likely that there will soon be a review in a Wiki-approved source. So I would suggest holding off for now and revisiting the issue in a few
627:
lists some very good sources with reputable journalists/authors, editorial control, and so on. I'm sorry, but none of the sources talking about this game are like that. Maybe that will change in the future, and I'd be more than happy to bring this up at
395:
Sources seem good enough for this kind of thing. It did receive a "game of the year" award. I was very pleased and surprised to see that the article was so short and just gave the basic information. I expected it to go on and on like most game articles.
428:
I have emailed the editors of a couple of relevant and Wiki approved game review sites to see whether they would consider the game for staff review. Perhaps we could hold off on any deletion decision for a while until I hear back from them?
443:
It should be noted that rather than mark statements as needing citations and adding the appropriate notices above the lead, Wyatt has been nominating the article for deletion, whilst also deleting nearly all the page.
362:). On the award nomination, it seems a little hard to condemn the review site as non-notable when other equally non-notable (in Wiki terms) on-line review sites are used as sources for other games listed on Wiki.
162:
650:
there are only two that are relevant to this game. Of those, one has expressed great interest; the other appears to be defunct as an email to the editor has bounced back. Again, I would suggest a look at the
764:). Please don't interpret this as me saying "newcomers aren't valuable to the project" or anything like that, it's just a prominent notice for people who aren't aware of our processes.
792:
My concern here is the phrase "That way it would probably make more people join this great game." - are the contributors' interests in promoting the game, or improving the encyclopedia?
239:
839:- There is no significant, independent coverage of this game. Perhaps if it wins the BGotY award it will receive some attention, so no prejudice against recreation at a later date.
594:
Notability and sourcing are notoriously tough to establish for online games. Rather than rehashing the arguments, I would suggest looking at the notability and Afd discussion on
117:
778:
Sure. But as no newcomers are editing the page, and there seems to be no reasonable expectation that they will, I wouldn't have thought that the #12 criteria were satisfied.
414:
for a "game of the year" award on a site where anyone can vote. This isn't anything close to an award given by a reputable gaming site with any sort of editorial control.
156:
524:"That’s an awesome find. Thanks for the tip! I have just the WWI fan on my staff who will be eager to check this out. The world could use another good WWI game."
478:, not a free-for-all site where people can write whatever they like and hope that someone else will come along and source it later. If this game doesn't meet our
574:
346:
is limited. However, it is in the nature of games, and especially on-line games, that it may be difficult to establish 3rd party sources (see the entries on
624:
704:
No, I can't find any information about winning an award either. The german site is announcing a
Supremacy tournament a must be considered a press release.
724:
122:
205:: Non-notable web game with no references from reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The
248:
278:
90:
85:
17:
94:
77:
177:
264:
144:
863:
725:
http://www.supremacy1914.com/index.php?id=24&tx_mmforum_pi1%5Baction%5D=list_post&tx_mmforum_pi1%5Btid%5D=26174
629:
36:
466:
on
Knowledge (XXG), and so I've requested that it be deleted. In the meantime, I have also removed material which
237:
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
581:
561:
358:
which has a couple of old reviews in obscure games magazines) or notability (see the discussion on notability on
498:
I'm not sure about the ethics of canvassing review sites, just so that the game can have an encyclopedia entry.
310:
138:
862:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
678:
due to the fact that it did win a notable award. Also, I'm not familiar with German sites or publications, but
458:
The article has been marked for sources for 6 months now, which is generous in my opinion. I looked and found
401:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
623:
calls for "multiple non-trivial published works", not a single source that is "likely" coming in the future.
368:
address them. The entry is not, I think, intended as an advertisement, and the game is of genuine interest.
848:
831:
801:
787:
773:
751:
736:
713:
699:
685:
664:
641:
612:
584:
564:
535:
507:
491:
453:
438:
423:
405:
383:
379:
294:
268:
222:
134:
59:
783:
747:
660:
608:
531:
522:
I just received an email response from the editor of a respected and Wiki-approved wargame site who said:
434:
373:
57:
253:
81:
844:
797:
709:
503:
779:
743:
656:
604:
527:
430:
369:
184:
769:
732:
695:
637:
578:
558:
487:
419:
218:
818:
599:
467:
202:
73:
65:
397:
355:
170:
682:
449:
300:
231:
761:
828:
50:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
479:
840:
793:
705:
499:
354:
which although useful and informative appear at a glance to have no 3rd party sources or on
150:
757:
647:
620:
471:
194:
765:
728:
691:
633:
483:
415:
214:
545:
351:
553:
549:
475:
198:
445:
526:
So I have hopes that there may be a proper review soon that we can use as a source.
823:
328:
316:
284:
690:
What's this award that it won? I haven't been able to find any mention of this.
111:
263:
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
679:
347:
652:
595:
359:
727:
while looking for sources, so I added the {{Not a ballot}} tag.
856:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
655:
discussion page as all this has been gone through previously.
226:
257:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,
247:
among
Knowledge (XXG) contributors. Knowledge (XXG) has
107:
103:
99:
756:
It's fairly common to see it happen, and suggested on
213:
for an award by an otherwise non-notable review site.
169:
183:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
866:). No further edits should be made to this page.
575:list of video game related deletion discussions
474:. Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia based on
462:reputable sources about this game, which is a
277:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
8:
552:and put together a proper game article with
482:, it should not be here, plain and simple.
470:and other Knowledge (XXG) policies such as
598:which covers this ground. In the case of
251:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
573:: This debate has been included in the
271:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
548:sources necessary to demonstrate
230:
625:WikiProject Video games/Sources
544:Lacks the multiple, in-depth,
1:
267:on the part of others and to
849:11:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
832:05:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
802:11:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
714:11:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
508:11:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
60:00:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
788:22:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
774:18:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
752:14:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
737:20:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
700:19:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
686:19:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
665:23:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
646:Of those sources listed on
642:19:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
632:if and when that happens.
613:09:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
585:00:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
565:00:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
536:17:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
492:18:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
454:15:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
439:10:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
424:07:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
406:21:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
384:16:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
223:16:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
883:
681:may be reliable enough. –
859:Please do not modify it.
476:verifiability, not truth
209:third-party source is a
32:Please do not modify it.
480:notability requirements
309:; accounts blocked for
279:single-purpose accounts
249:policies and guidelines
464:criteria for inclusion
721:Comment about process
520:Possible new source
468:violates copyrights
356:DEFCON (video game)
261:by counting votes.
240:not a majority vote
830:
44:The result was
822:
587:
410:Note that it was
342:
341:
338:
265:assume good faith
874:
861:
826:
569:
387:
336:
324:
308:
292:
273:
243:, but instead a
234:
227:
188:
187:
173:
125:
115:
97:
53:
34:
882:
881:
877:
876:
875:
873:
872:
871:
870:
864:deletion review
857:
824:
723:: I ran across
630:Deletion review
377:
326:
314:
298:
282:
269:sign your posts
130:
121:
88:
72:
69:
51:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
880:
878:
869:
868:
852:
851:
834:
812:
811:
810:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
804:
718:
717:
716:
702:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
600:Supremacy 1914
589:
588:
567:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
511:
510:
496:
495:
494:
398:Northwestgnome
389:
388:
382:comment added
364:
363:
352:Combat Mission
340:
339:
235:
191:
190:
127:
123:AfD statistics
74:Supremacy 1914
68:
66:Supremacy 1914
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
879:
867:
865:
860:
854:
853:
850:
846:
842:
838:
835:
833:
829:
827:
820:
816:
813:
803:
799:
795:
791:
790:
789:
785:
781:
777:
776:
775:
771:
767:
763:
759:
755:
754:
753:
749:
745:
740:
739:
738:
734:
730:
726:
722:
719:
715:
711:
707:
703:
701:
697:
693:
689:
688:
687:
684:
680:
677:
674:
673:
666:
662:
658:
654:
649:
645:
644:
643:
639:
635:
631:
626:
622:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
610:
606:
601:
597:
593:
586:
583:
580:
576:
572:
568:
566:
563:
560:
555:
551:
547:
543:
540:
539:
538:
537:
533:
529:
525:
521:
509:
505:
501:
497:
493:
489:
485:
481:
477:
473:
469:
465:
461:
457:
456:
455:
451:
447:
442:
441:
440:
436:
432:
427:
426:
425:
421:
417:
413:
409:
408:
407:
403:
399:
394:
391:
390:
385:
381:
375:
371:
366:
365:
361:
357:
353:
349:
344:
343:
334:
330:
322:
318:
312:
306:
302:
296:
290:
286:
280:
276:
272:
270:
266:
260:
256:
255:
250:
246:
242:
241:
236:
233:
229:
228:
225:
224:
220:
216:
212:
208:
204:
200:
196:
186:
182:
179:
176:
172:
168:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
136:
133:
132:Find sources:
128:
124:
119:
113:
109:
105:
101:
96:
92:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
67:
64:
62:
61:
58:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
858:
855:
836:
814:
780:Londoner1961
744:Londoner1961
720:
675:
657:Londoner1961
605:Londoner1961
591:
590:
570:
541:
528:Londoner1961
523:
519:
518:
463:
459:
431:Londoner1961
411:
392:
370:Londoner1961
332:
320:
311:sockpuppetry
304:
293:; suspected
288:
274:
262:
258:
252:
244:
238:
210:
206:
192:
180:
174:
166:
159:
153:
147:
141:
131:
52:Juliancolton
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
841:Marasmusine
794:Marasmusine
706:Marasmusine
500:Marasmusine
378:—Preceding
157:free images
766:Wyatt Riot
729:Wyatt Riot
692:Wyatt Riot
634:Wyatt Riot
550:notability
484:Wyatt Riot
416:Wyatt Riot
245:discussion
215:Wyatt Riot
211:nomination
203:WP:SOURCES
819:premature
676:Weak keep
412:nominated
348:RuneQuest
301:canvassed
295:canvassed
254:consensus
762:WP:BEGIN
760:(#12 at
683:MuZemike
557:before.
554:verified
546:reliable
446:Dared111
333:username
327:{{subst:
321:username
315:{{subst:
305:username
299:{{subst:
289:username
283:{{subst:
118:View log
825:Cocytus
603:months.
582:another
579:Someone
562:another
559:Someone
380:undated
297:users:
163:WP refs
151:scholar
91:protect
86:history
837:Delete
815:Delete
758:WP:AFD
648:WP:WEB
621:WP:WEB
542:Delete
472:WP:NOT
195:WP:WEB
193:Fails
135:Google
95:delete
46:delete
653:OGame
596:OGame
360:OGame
275:Note:
178:JSTOR
139:books
112:views
104:watch
100:links
16:<
845:talk
798:talk
784:talk
770:talk
748:talk
733:talk
710:talk
696:talk
661:talk
638:talk
609:talk
592:Keep
571:Note
532:talk
504:talk
488:talk
450:talk
435:talk
420:talk
402:talk
393:Keep
374:talk
350:and
219:talk
207:only
199:WP:V
171:FENS
145:news
108:logs
82:talk
78:edit
821:.
376:)
329:csp
325:or
317:csm
285:spa
259:not
185:TWL
120:•
116:– (
48:. –
847:)
800:)
786:)
772:)
750:)
735:)
712:)
698:)
663:)
640:)
611:)
577:.
534:)
506:)
490:)
460:no
452:)
437:)
422:)
404:)
335:}}
323:}}
313::
307:}}
291:}}
281::
221:)
201:,
197:,
165:)
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
56:|
843:(
796:(
782:(
768:(
746:(
731:(
708:(
694:(
659:(
636:(
607:(
530:(
502:(
486:(
448:(
433:(
418:(
400:(
386:.
372:(
337:.
331:|
319:|
303:|
287:|
217:(
189:)
181:·
175:·
167:·
160:·
154:·
148:·
142:·
137:(
129:(
126:)
114:)
76:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.