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. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geo-political web-based simulator[edit]

Geo-political web-based simulator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Most of the article seems to constitute Wikipedia:No original research. Although there are quite a lot of sources listed, every single one of the references fails Wikipedia:Verifiability: see User:Jobjörn/gpwbs-afd for a more detailed investigation of the sources listed in the article (as of 00:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)). The concept the article deals with fails the proposed policy/guideline of Wikipedia:Notability (computer and video games), and furthermore, the content of the article is mostly composed of descriptions on various nationsims, and every single one of these fails the established Wikipedia:Notability (web). I have, in vain, tried googling on the most imaginative search strings in order to find a source independent of nationsims, dealing with them. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 00:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC). Per AfD rules, this request may be close in five days, specifically on or after 00:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC). -- Jreferee 16:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per being the nominator. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 03:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom--M8v2 02:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MER-C 03:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 03:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: One may want review the following earlier AfDs, as they may contain material relevant to this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True World Simulator (also dealing with WorldPower and SuperPower Classic), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superpower Classic, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars Diplomacy and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qpawn. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 03:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn notable, original research. Every one of the quasi nations (forums and log in sites) links right back their site and fails Wikipedia:Notability (web). The one external link is also a log in which does not help much. --John Lake 06:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. A lot of guesswork, and WP:OR. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 10:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I would support keeping it. I can remember playing 'Diplomacy' when young, and these games are just more sophisticated computer-versions. Could you not just remove the bits of text and the links that are objectionable? The article doesn't have to look like an advert. Sam Blacketer 11:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • These nationsims have hardly any relationship to Diplomacy (board game). They do not claim to do so, and the only thing they and Diplomacy have in common is well... diplomacy. There are other Diplomacy computer games. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I played 'Diplomacy' it was more 'stabbing people in the back'. Oh well. Sam Blacketer 12:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, "diplomacy". ;) Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Lock (perhaps reduct to stub first) pending resolution of multiple mediations and other issues between article originator and editor proposing deletion of article. -- Jreferee 16:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC). Delete Mediation appears to have been resolved (per comment below). I really hate to delete all that information. There is so much of it, it must have come from someplace reliable. I tried to do some research on the topic to provide at least one reliable source, but couldn't figure out what the topic was: Geo-political web-based simulator? Geo-political internet simulator? Geopolitical simulator? Some of the subject matter from the article might fit in the simulation article, but I'm not even sure whether the term "Geopolitical" is appropriate. Geopolitics doesn't mention anything about simulation. Before deleting the article, it would be kind of someone with some knowledge in this area to place a reference to this topic in an appropriate Wikipedia article. That way, someone in the future might be prompted to develop a correct article on the topic (whatever that topic may in fact be). There probably is a relevant article on the topic, but the present article does not appear to be that.-- Jreferee 18:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I was under the impression that those matters had been settled. The two cases in question, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-08 Swedish Anarcho-syndicalist Youth Federation and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-08 Christian Democracy, both initiated by me, are now closed. Itake has not made any edits to either of the articles since. He has also been invited, by me, to partake in the AfD discussion. I have not nominated this article to prove a WP:POINT, believe me. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 16:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment: I believe the article has been written by nationsim players, for nationsim players. I have myself played nationsims and yes, it is fun! But, there's a lot of fun stuff not in the encyclopedias. Perhaps that lies in the nature of fun... Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Thanks for the information. I googled nationsim players. However, I still can't put my finger on the topic of the article, which means I can't actually determine whether the topic is Wikipedia notable. If it was, I would reduce the article, footnote it, and support it on deletion review. As I posted above, there has to be an article in all that text, but I can't figure out what it is and thus can't offer any support to the article. -- Jreferee 17:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'd really like to vote to keep this article, because I think the subject is interesting and because I'd expect this type of game to be more popular in the future. BUT repeated AfDs on the specific games in this category have (it appears) failed to produce a single reliable source (as defined by WP:RS). Instead, it seems that everything out there on the Web (based on a couple of google searches I did) is either (a) a reflection/mirror of wikipedia articles or (b) game sites, forums, and other peripheral mentions about the specific games. So I'm guessing that there may be a thousand or so (or less) folks who play or have played such games, and that's about the level of interest in these. Ironically, perhaps, if someone had really done original research and traced the origins of each of the games, identified their differences, gotten figures on how many people play and have played each, gotten information about the business model (so to speak - costs to play, costs to operate, etc.), and compared the games to each other (if I were a potential player, which would I be interested in?), I'd be very tempted to argue "usefulness" (not an accepted criteria, I know), and it's possible that there wouldn't have been an AfD (not even unsourced article ends up here.) But that's not the case - it's really not a very useful OR interesting article. John Broughton | Talk 17:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Split Infinity ^(talk) 23:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's an interesting subject (to me, personally) but that's not reason enough to keep it. There's a fair bit of original research here, and as such, nothing that is verifiable is within this article. But I've copied this to my userspace if people want to work on it, it's at User:SunStar Net/Geo-political web-based simulator. For now, delete it. --SunStar Net^talk 00:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the nom said it better than I could. — Seadog^Talk 00:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Violates WP:OR. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:56, 17 December 2006 (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.