The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BuzzerBeater[edit]

I see that this online game, although it won NO awards and has NO reviews whatsoever, is free to exist on Wikipedia. If you will delete this one, you will have to delete that one too. Are the rules same for all? Cafa80 (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search for the developer and game name brings up 38 results - oh dear. Don't confuse it with the basketball manga Buzzer Beater with your searches (presumably this is where it got its name). It's either PRs, the game itself or WP and its mirrors, doesn't establish any notability at all. Someone another 22:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources and claim to notability as shown by Someone another. The entry can also be used as a Redirect to the basketball manga.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete — blatant advertising. See WP:CSD#G11. MuZemike (talk) 02:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability and verfiability, although I have to admit I'm confused by the language in the nomination itself ("If you will delete this one, you will have to delete that one too"). Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm the lead developer of BuzzerBeater and President of Digital Field Theory, LLC. I would like to try and clear up some facts and help inform the discussion. First off, we are not affiliated with or related to the Japanese manga; we are a Delaware LLC founded in January 2007, based in Cambridge, MA, and only make BuzzerBeater and other online sports games in development. We chose the name because a Buzzerbeater, or last-second made basket that changes the result of the game, is the most exciting play in basketball. Second, no member of our staff has been involved in creating the article on Wikipedia. The initial article appears to have been created by somebody from Tasmania, which is about as far away from Boston as one can possibly get. The other editors I can trace on the history page come from Italy (multiple locations), New York, Washington DC, Slovakia, a .uk address, Boston, Nova Scotia, Uruguay, and Ontario. The large expansion in the page comes from a user without an IP but who has also edited pages on Uruguayan basketball, so I suspect he's from Uruguay. We as of this moment have 26,344 active users, with one user per account and inactive accounts delted after on month. We show 20 million pages per month, and have an Alexa rating of 18,180. I would be happy to help establish any of these as facts; you may email me at charles@buzzerbeater.org. As far as whether BuzzerBeater should have a page on Wikipedia, I feel that is really your editorial decision, not mine. My personal bias is that I would have included no online games in an encyclopedia, although I do use Wikipedia as a source when researching other online games. However, I would expect the BuzzerBeater page to be treated in the same way that, for example, one would treat the page on Hattrick, an online soccer game designed along identical principles which is the largest online soccer manager game, just as we are the largest online basketball manager game. If there are any further question as to whether the article is factual, I would be happy to help provide any necessary supporting evidence. CSteinhardt (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, we appreciate the forthcoming of the comment. However, I should point you to WP:ALEXA and WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE. Large numbers or website ranking do not determine the article's notability, but rather the quality of the article's verifiable, third-party sources. In addition, to further avoid deletion (which is my rationale for speedy deletion), the article needs a complete rewrite, getting rid of any advertising undertones present and replacing with encyclopedic content. MuZemike (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also almost forgot to mention that Inclusion is not an indicator of notability (in the case of referring to the existence of a similar article. MuZemike (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was not involved in writing the article, I'm not going to try and defend the current tone. I feel it is similar to the tone of other online game articles, and beyond that, I think it's wrong of me as a non-contributor to decide what are proper editorial standards for Wikipedia. I would say though that if your concern is that the article needs a complete rewrite, I would be willing to assist in that process, and rewriting a poor article on a proper topic is a better choice than deleting it. What would get me upset in this discussion is the idea that the largest online basketball game in the world is not worthy of inclusion while at the same time, not only the largest soccer game in the world but (as I have noticed looking around Wikipedia) the 20th largest online soccer game in the world are worthy of inclusion with articles that look remarkably similar to ours. So I might think a better approach here would be that since there's clearly a global community that was involved in writing this article and thinks it's worth having, perhaps we might be able to rewrite it. I would be happy to assist in such an effort, but I would feel uncomfortable doing without the help of somebody who writes more regularly for Wikipedia and is not affiliated with BuzzerBeater. Is this a good option? CSteinhardt (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it is, but it needs to be proven via verifiable, third-party sources. It's also not an issue as to what other similar articles are like (Read Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability again.) it is an issue as to how this article is written and the notability of this article. MuZemike (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi C, the specific problem here is that WP is a tertiary source and needs secondary sources, which are deemed reliable, which cover the subject in enough detail to create an article. This is because editors are not allowed to conduct original research. With video games this coverage is reviews, and that's where we run into problems. As useful a tool as WP is, the fact that you use it to look at competitors highlights the problem: there is no GameSpot or IGN for MMOs. The only MMOs which are guaranteed coverage are the shop-sold titles like WoW and Age of Conan, IE a grain of sand on the beach, because they're treated the same as the next Command and Conquer game etc. Everything else, from the smallest MUD to RuneScape and Maple Story, is covered patchily, in sources we can't classify as reliable or just isn't covered. A few sources have sprung up with regards to casual games and indie games in general, MMOs are just paid lip service. Until the gap is filled by a site or magazine that covers all popular MMOs, our coverage will remain as patchy as the sources. Regarding Hattrick: it has already been listed for deletion, but sources were found to establish its notability during that discussion, they just haven't been written into the article yet. That article's a work in progress like the vast majority on WP. The other MMO articles will either be: a) referenced and have demonstrated notability in the WP sense, b) have sources which aren't yet cited in the article or c) be non-notable which means that they could be listed for deletion at any time, as has happened here. After making the 'named after' comment I had a "duh" moment and realized it would be a known term, something to do with beating the clock. As a Brit who knows nothing about basketball it follows that terminology relating to the sport is no more part of my vocabulary than similar terms in baseball etc. Hope that answers some questions. Someone another 21:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.