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. Stifle (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ISurv1vor[edit]

ISurv1vor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article about web content (online game) of dubious notability per WP:WEB, with no reliable third party source to establish notability Boffob (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While there currently is not much content on this page, I hope to change that in the near future by calling upon several people to help me add information to the page. Online reality games have become a prominent fixture in the world of gaming on the internet. They're not "real" shows, but the way they're crafted and run make them as "real" as possible. iSurv1vor is one of the more prominent of these online reality games on the internet today, and I feel it deserves a page to detail and chart its great progress over the past several years.Onetz53 (talk) 02:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Onetz53 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. Utter failure of notability by presenting no independent coverage of the game. If this is a "more prominent" online game, there would be coverage of it in the media to support that assertion. The lack of reliable sources also means that there's not much that can be done to verify the article. The article is just one notch away from being a speedy deletion candidate. —C.Fred (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So just because there's no "media coverage" of iSurv1vor, the article is a total bust and should be deleted? I say it's "more prominent" than other games for several reasons. There are hardly any other ORG's currently out there that are entering their 10th season. The iSurv1vor group on Facebook has amassed an amazing community of nearly 100 former and potential players. There's just an exuberance surrounding this game and this series and I really do believe it deserves a place at Wikipedia to detail it for fellow gamers and potential gamers. Onetz53 (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can we verify that it's the only ORG in its tenth season - or for that matter, that it's actually in its tenth season? As for the following, every community on Facebook with 100 people does not get its own article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and C.Fred. Non-notable online game. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of verifiable, third-party sources establishing notability of this game. The article's creator also has a conflict of interest with the subject, as the article's creator is also the copyright holder of the images shown in the article. MuZemike (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 01:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep What is a "notable third-party source" for a online game? Specially if it's not commercial, it not gains cover in the press (just because it's not a awarded title or like). The game is notable simply because is a one-of-kind.MRFraga (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of things on the web are one-of-a-kind; not all of them are notable enough for an article. Notable web content either has gotten the independent coverage, has gotten an independent and well-respected award, or is distributed by somebody else. iSurv1vor meets none of the specific criteria, nor does it meet the general criteria. —C.Fred (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Proof" that iSurv1vor has currently been around for 9 seasons: http://www.geocities.com/mummball/fiji.html http://www.geocities.com/mummball/patagonia.html http://www.geocities.com/surv1vor3/greekIsles.html http://www.geocities.com/surv1vor4/china.html http://www.geocites.com/surv1vor5/egypt.html http://www.geocities.com/surv1vor6/cambodia.html http://isurv1vor7.proboards41.com/index.cgi http://isurv1vor8.proboards42.com/index.cgi http://isurv1vor9peru.proboards85.com/index.cgi

As far as "proving" that other games rarely reach 10 seasons, all you have to do is scroll through the listings at either ORG Reloaded (http://orgreloaded.com/indexs/survivor_casting_php.php) or Fantasy Games Central (http://fantasygamescentral.yuku.com/forums/67/t/Advertise.html) and you'll see that the vast majority are random, new series that honestly won't last more than a couple seasons (if even that). These two websites are probably the most major sources of ORG casting. ORGs hit their hay-day five or so years ago when shows like Survivor were still fairly new, so for a current series to still be going strong from that time period is pretty "notable" to me.

I think to simply ignore the facet of ORG gaming across the internet doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me. It's real, it's fascinating, it's fun. So why not include it on Wikipedia? Onetz53 (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you of the reliable source guideline, "It's unknown here, so include it", and "those are popular pages". Please re-read the basic Wikipedia guidelines on verifiability. MuZemike (talk) 06:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - whilst I appreciate that the article hasn't had much time to develop, only 19 ghits suggest that this game does not currently meet the notability threshold for inclusion (WP:N) Marasmusine (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not much is available in the way of reliable source material. See Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. This seems to be a misunderstanding between reliable sources and Wikipedia reliable sources. -- Suntag ☼ 12:09, 17 October 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.