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. A neutral verifiable article can't be built without engaging in OR is we have no sources. This game does seem to be on it's "way up," so there is no prejudice against recreating the article should non trivial & reliable secondary sources be found. ---J.S ^(T/C) 22:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nexus War (second nomination)[edit]

Nexus War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is the second nomination for deletion- the first nomination was a bit of a trainwreck that spent more time heckling about minor things than addressing the article. Anyway, I believe that the information in the article is unverifiable from a lack of independent sources and that it does not meet criteria in WP:WEB. Google search doesn't dig up any sources and Google links show 23 unique links, none of which are reliable (ie all blogs and forums). Alexa rank around 135k. Wafulz 18:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleteper nom. Fails WP:WEB and no third pary sources. TJ Spyke 19:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB. And thanks to the nominator for nominating using the right policy instead of WP:SOFTWARE. Hopefully this AfD will be more to the point. MartinDK 19:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:WEB as I can't find any reliable coverage through either Google or Google News. Jayden54 21:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - while it doesn't yet have multiple independent sources, it has appeared in print, in Custom PC Magazine in the UK this month, as one of it's top 10 "casual games". The magazine is not available online, but a member of the Nexus War Forums was kind enough to provide a photo-shot of the appearance recently [1]. Does this magazine qualify as large enough for this? Circulation is approx 22,000 according to the publisher. Regardless, the fact that it's in print should definitely be an indicator of it's notability. -- Kirby1024 02:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI think this falls under the "trivial mention" area- it's not really the subject of an article, it's just mentioned in passing in a minor magazine. --Wafulz 04:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actually, that's not true. The scan is just a small sidebar; the article itself deals extensively with NW (about equal time is given to NW and to Bejeweled, with interviews to both development teams) and how it works.--Jorm 23:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Can you give a scan of that? We would need muptiple sources anyway- this might count as one. --Wafulz 17:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Well, the article is 5 pages long, and I'm a bit nervous about providing an external magazine's entire article to the entire interweb. However, I'll contact the publisher and see what I can do.--Jorm 20:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Don't worry about it, I'll take your word for it. This is still only one source though. --Wafulz 06:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Utterly fails WP:WEB, above mention in non-notable magazine is trivial.--RWR8189 07:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Apparently this actually does fail WP:WEB once I read it closely, which I see as a problem with WP:WEB. This is a widely played, widely linked, widely-known-about online game--30,762 unique users--and eminently deserving of a Wikipedia article.--Mobius Soul 18:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either way it would need multiple non-trivial sources. Having a Wikipedia article isn't some sort of privilege or status symbol- it just reflects how many reliable sources are available about a topic. --Wafulz 17:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as Alexa rank does not imply notability Shawnfagel 04:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The proceeding is this user's second contribution to Wikipedia.--RWR8189 07:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The Alexa rank is one of many things I've used to address the issue of meeting WP:WEB.--Wafulz 17:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Alexa Rank only counts certain Internet Explorer users and most of the games players use Firefox due to the Extentions for the game, Alexa rank is a really a non issue. Shawnfagel 22:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As above, magazine article serves as a non-trivial mention. --Nyroska 04:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The proceeding is this user's first contribution to Wikipedia.--RWR8189 07:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The mention is actually trivial. This is one minor mention in one minor magazine- it would need multiple non-trivial sources.--Wafulz 17:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• (Just a comment: implying that someone's vote is unworthy because of lack of contributions when your own contributions are almost entirely in "articles for deletion" and associated talk pages makes you look a bit silly.)--Jorm 20:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I have over 1100 edits, less than 200 of them being in the Wikipedia name space.--RWR8189 05:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I actually used to have another account a while back, but for some reason I can't seem to log in with it now. Not that I had all that many more contributions there either, but it's worth noting. --Nyroska 08:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Most other browser games have a seeming lack of sources, yet they have articles simply because they've been around longer, and thus have more accounts. If you extrapolate out the data, you would probably find NexusWar to be just as notable as any other browser game. There are far more articles on Wikipedia that are of less notability. Kazmarov 23:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those games should be deleted for not having sources. One of the flaws of AfD is people argue back and forth about notability and what constitutes it and completely forget about proper sourcing. --Wafulz 06:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/75/19 shows support (albeit trivial) for keeping this. It also talks about it along with other well known browser based games, the likes of Kingdom Of Loathing and Urban Dead. Infested-jerk 04:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to have as much support as other online games, in terms of evidence and userbase based on age. - Norminator 20:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This does not address the fact that there are not mutiple non-trivial independent sources. --Wafulz 21:48, 31 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.