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 keep. Canley (talk) 11:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ikariam[edit]

Article was speedily deleted under Speedy deletion criterion A7, but was restored for the purpose of a full deletion discussion per Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_February_1. I have no opinion on the matter. Aervanath (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable browser game. --Peephole (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it not notable? It meets the inclusion criteria by having significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject.--Patton^t/c 19:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject has recieved significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject.

Article in major arabic business newspaper (Link in English) about Gameforge and Ikariam.
Planet-geek.com review; a relianble website which has authority in the subject area
mpogd.com review, a website which reviews and gives details about online games, and is a reliable source
IGN review; IGN is a reliable source in this subject area.

I would like to add that 53,000 registered accounts makes it rather notable, although it isn't taken into account by WP:N.--Patton^t/c

Comment: The amount of users a game has is completely irrelevant. About the sources: the news article is a press release from Gameforge which barely mentions the game, Planet Geek is a blog and MPOGD is a directory. The IGN source seems ok. But ultimately we need multiple reliable sources, providing significant coverage. One won't cut it.--Peephole (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Ikariam (http://www.ae.ikariam.com/)

"Industrious workers, soldiers and researchers build on their own little empire between white beaches and rocky hills...(A whole paragraph but I dont' think I can paste it all here)"

This is about Gameforge's business model?--Patton^t/c 19:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regardless of the outcome, the history of this article needs to be addressed - there's deleted revisions at Special:Undelete/User:Patton123/Ikariam that really need to be merged into the history of the article presently at Ikariam - I'll leave that for the administrator to deal with when closing this discussion however. Nick (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was one of the last of a string of administrators who speedy-deleted an earlier version of this article. Having examined all the references attached to the article in its current incarnation, I agree with Peephole's assessment above; there do not seem to me to be multiple reliable sources providing significant coverage. As near as I can tell, all the material I checked was written by anonymous or pseudonymous contributors, which is always a bad sign to me with respect to reliability. This game may become more notable at some future point and it might be worth re-examining coverage then. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It needs to be rewritten with sources, but I see no reason why it should be deleted as it is clearly quite notable. I was one of the contributors to the article that was written last year, which was as I remember complete with sources, unfortunately the original article was deleted when Ikariam got it's own wiki. I don't know if there is a deletion debate anywhere but I know that I at least wasn't aware of it. La Kiwi 22:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcollis (talk • contribs)

Keep - IGN has two, not one, substantial articles on the game. There's also a GameZebo review, a preview at GameZone, a news item at Gamers Hell, a preview at N4G, a three-part article at WorldsInMotion, an article at GameSetWatch and a large number of reviews at sites with maybe more questionable or undetermined reliability[1][2][3][4][5][6] SharkD (talk) 04:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources satisfying WP:V and WP:RS allowing for a WP:NPOV article have turned up. MLauba (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage, scope and/or reliability of the initially presented sources is underwhelming at best, but the RPG Vault/IGN piece is usable. Take most of the best sources presented by SharkD and we have a very different picture. Gamezebo is an excellent source, and the piece in question is not insubstantial, ditto GameZone. Worlds in Motion, part of the Gamasutra stable, is offering three [7] [8] [9] items which add up to some substantial coverage and unlike a lot of sources waved around on AFD they actually critique. They're in-depth, multiple and reliable; it seems journos are finally (and it's taken some time) woken up to the importance of MMOGs which aren't World of Warcraft. Someone another 15:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also suggest abandoning anything suspect (like the MPOGD review) and sticking with ^ them), poor sources weaken articles in the same way reliable ones strengthen them. Someone another 15:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — per the above. Notability is easily established through reliable secondary sources from multiple places. MuZemike 21:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as clearly meeting the GNG per sources provided above. Hobit (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Someone. --Joshua Issac (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2009 (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.