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 redirect to Travian Games. Anyone wishing to merge anything from the page will find the content under the redirect. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Travians[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:WEB and WP:V: non-notable browser game with no non-trivial references from reliable, third party sources. There is a single source (The Hindu) that is reliable but doesn't cover the game in any depth as required by WP:WEB. None of the remaining sources are reliable according to the WikiProject Video games guide to sources. I used the WPVG custom Google search and found only more trivial and forum posts. The "Browser Game of the Year" mention is from site that has been judged by WPVG as specifically unreliable. Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about this extensive analysis of the game by Kieron Gillan, found on the first page of the custom google search? Marasmusine (talk) 10:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That review is actually about Travian, a notable game by the same production company. I almost didn't nominate this article because of that article until I realized it was about the different game. It shows up in the Google search because a user mentions Travians in the comments. Cheers! Wyatt Riot (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that complicates things! I'll take another look. Marasmusine (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it has two sources (Casualty Gamer, Ajaxian) giving it significant coverage and one (The Hindu) mentioning it among others. I believe this is sufficient for GNG. --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ajaxian source is a trivial mention on a blog by an unknown author. The Casualty Gamer source is a lengthy review, yes, but it's written poorly and unprofessionally by a quasi-anonymous source, and it's on an otherwise unremarkable gaming website which gives no indication of its editorial oversight. The Hindu source name drops the game, nothing more. None of these meet the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" that WP:GNG requires. Wyatt Riot (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Travians is the main topic of the Ajaxian post, so I believe it is not trivial. The author of the post is the founder of Ajaxian. I think Ajaxian is a reliable source as it is cited by papers and books.[1] --Joshua Issac (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two sentences of setup and a quote is not "significant coverage" as required by both WP:GNG and WP:WEB. You're right about the author of the blog being listed, however, I must have missed that when I checked the source earlier. But even if that author is accepted to be an expert (which I think has yet to be proven), it's still a self-published blog (see WP:SELFPUBLISH and WP:NEWSBLOG) with a trivial mention of a product that is outside the scope of the expert's domain. Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The author has a BSc in Computer Science and works for Mozilla. He is an expert on programming and Ajax[2] (and also other browser-related stuff, I'm guessing, because he works for Mozilla) and Travians is a browser-based game which uses Ajax a lot, so he would be familiar with the technical side of it. I cannot find any evidence of him doing any game development, though. --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Travian Games per WP:PRODUCT. Since a simple typo can confuse the two games, it's not clear which game The Hindu may be refering to (it does not go into details). The Ajaxian article is both trivial and self-published. The Galaxy News award (better link here) is worth mentioning but trivial enough to included at my proposed target article. The poor grammar of the Casualty Gamer review shows exactly why we don't normally accept self-published sources. I could not find any further usable sources. Marasmusine (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ajaxian article is published by a reliable source (as the site is sited by other sources a lot). The article's main topic is the subject, and the author is an expert in Ajax and browsers which is probably as relevant as you can get to the field (see WP:SPS). --Joshua Issac (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the source is reliable, which I don't feel it is, it's definitely extremely trivial. We can't build an encyclopedia around sources like this. Wyatt Riot (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCH COMMS / 20:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to article on company, Travian Games, due to the notability concerns outlined above.--Pink Bull 00:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Either way, the sources do not justify the page. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 10:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Travian Games per WP:PRODUCT. --Teancum (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2010 (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.