Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roblox

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The "keep" opinions, apart from RGTraynor's, are completely unpersuasive in the light of the various policies and guidelines cited in the discussion.Sandstein (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roblox[edit]

Roblox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
File:Builderman.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:BigRoblox.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Non-notable website, no claims of notability, no reliable sources. I would have tagged this for db-web, but it's been here for quite a while with a lot of editors. Corvus cornixtalk 23:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not have any reliable sources, per WP:RS and fails WP:WEB for notability. Gary King (talk) 05:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources in the article and no reliable sources coming from google, doesn't demonstrate notability. Someoneanother 12:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - although searching revealed a huge amount of Youtube videos, blogs, wikis and forums on the subject, I couldn't find a single reliable source to meet WP:N or WP:V. Gazimoff WriteRead 12:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 143,000 google hits, 4000 youtube videos and 300000 accounts should be enough to establish a minimal level of notability, above that of many other videogame-related articles in WikiPedia. There's precedence demonstrated in similar entries such as Adventure Quest -- whose references are circular and Star Sonata, with similar quality references and which has 1/3 the audience size of ROBLOX. --Shedletsky (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regrettably, an article cannot be kept purely based on the argument that other articles exist. There are articles on WP which should exist and do not, just as there are articles that shouldn't exist and do. It's why an article is discussed for deletion it is examined on it's own merits, based on the source material available. Additionally, Google hits and Youtube video counts are a form of Search Engine Test, which are not recommended for examining concerns surrounding notability or verifiability. It is why coverage is requested in the form of third-party reliable sources in order to assert this. Gazimoff WriteRead 18:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but that level of internet activity does speak to a non-zero level of cultural relevance. My point in drawing attention to the other entries isn't that I don't think they should have articles, but rather that the guidelines that work well for WikiPedia at large may not be entirely suitable for emerging online games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.151.58 (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Articles of incorporation were filed in Delaware in 2006, if we have to we can change the entry from being about ROBLOX the game to being about ROBLOX, the studio that makes the game ROBLOX. --Shedletsky (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC) — Shedletsky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The flatworld page has a chunk of Morgan McGuire's CV copied into it. He's a prof at Williams who has worked on ROBLOX. His CV is here [[1]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shedletsky (talk • contribs) 23:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn't make it a reliable source as to the website's notability. Corvus cornixtalk 01:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from the articles you've started, you don't know anything about online games. So what's it to you? How did you happen to come across this page? I'm suspicious that you may actually be a competitor who has ulterior motives here, or some other vested interest that you have not disclosed. --Shedletsky (talk) 07:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Way to assume good faith. I never even heard of Roblox until I saw this edit, which violated Wikipedia's copyright rules, and so I removed the edit and read the article, at which point there were no reliable sources, I went looking for some and couldn't find any, that's when I did the AfD. I have nothing to do with computer games or any other vested interest, as you would have been able to tell by looking at my edit history. Corvus cornixtalk 18:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please remember that when engaging in debates to assume good faith and not make personal attacks. Additionally, please note that knowledge of the subject does not restrict an ability to analyse the content of the article to meet Wikipedia's policies for submission. The references listed in this AfD fall short of what is required as a reliable source. Sources should be from third-party organisations unrelated to the subject. Please see WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N for more information. Gazimoff WriteRead 12:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know the whole article has no refrences because I wrote almost the whole article myself. B y the way, the user above me, Sheldsky, is actually the game developer. And I know he isnt an imposter because he was the one to create the article on Roblox. Anyways, I wrote the whole article using my own game knoledge, so I dont know anyway to give a refence to that. But after I wrote it, many people decided to vandalize it and change the article into a stub. But I digress, I dont know how to refrence the article, and I cant find 3rd party sources. --Briguy9876 (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QED. Corvus cornixtalk 17:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes. You wrote "Keep" up front, but then proceeded to point out that the article has potential issues with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Notability. Pagrashtak 18:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Isn't this a full on admission that the article is not-notable, original research, with a conflict of interest, and totally unverifiable? Holy smokes. This is practically a textbook case for a deletion-worthy article. Randomran (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem is that there Aren't any reliable third -party sources. Most are so tiny they dont help, or they were written by another user, such as this article now and the biggest one on Great Games Experiment. I know that I said that I wrote it, butI said Keep becuase there arent any 3rd party sources that can create the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briguy9876 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what would YOU consider a "reliable" source, Corvus Cornix?

Have you read WP:RS? Corvus cornixtalk 23:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using that logic, you might as well delete half the articles on this site. --69.210.112.167 (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said it yourself, Corvus. The article has alot of authors. And what you dont know, is that about 80% of those edits didnt help the article at all,and 15 of the rest were minor. Now, I say this because thats alot of vandalism, for something that has hardly any media attention, nor has lot of 3rd party sources. THats why I say for the article to keep, purly because the game is popular,and the article is popular, so removing it would be bad in my eyes. --Briguy9876 (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep ROBLOX Has over 300,000 members, but isn't allowed to have a wiki article? I guess ROBLOX doesn't have many 3rd party things, but it is new and hasn't yet had time to collect such things. It is growing rapidly, and if you delete it now it will be ready to be re-made very soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.120.40 (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC) — 70.177.120.40 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Correction You can't vote "strong keep" and admit that the article cannot be supported by 3rd party resources. Randomran (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
THeres just one more thing that we can point out: Since the few 3rd-party sources we do have gives enough info to make a stub , cant we at least save the article and turn it into a stub IF we delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briguy9876 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to ask the people for deleting this page what would constitute all those rules (not-notable, original research, with a conflict of interest, and totally unverifiable) in the context of an online game? I'm not exactly sure how someone would go about finding a strong source that would support all this. Things like magazines and books generally don't include things about online games. In addition, how could we verify that the facts were true? I can understand how Wikipedia needs to know it has factual information, but the simple fact is, we lack that material. But does that mean we shouldn't exist until someone decides to write a book about it? Palmfreak (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another source: http://connollyshaun.blogspot.com/2008/02/roblox-redux.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmfreak (talk • contribs) 01:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment People voting keep are admitting this article breaks every rule and still vote to keep it. The rules are not context sensitive. The rules for notability, reliable research, verifiability, and neutral point of view apply to all articles regardless of whether it's politics, movies, history, or games. Game articles aren't compared to each other. Game articles are compared to Napoleon. If you want to create a wiki for a random online flash game, there are other gamer exclusive wikis with much lower standards than wikipedia. Randomran (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: Alright, I know, I know. But there comes a point when the tide is high enough to lift the boat past the WP:IAR threshold, and I think this is one. No, there aren't any third-party, independent, published sources that I can find, and yes, the article should be edited to conform to POV standards. But ... we're talking a subject that has over 800 unique Google hits [2], and that's huge; by contrast, "United States of America" has only 930. Plainly there's a significant buzz out there.  RGTraynor  16:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, we can't write an article without verifiability, and we can't have verifiability without third-party sources. How do you propose to overcome this? Pagrashtak 17:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe external traffic stats would help? We're somewhere around the 30000th most visited site on the internet, according to compete.com and alexa. For comparison, any number above 10000 would be considered a "hit". [Compete.com Roblox Rank ~35000th] [Alexa.com Roblox Rank ~25000th] --Shedletsky (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You seem to be addressing notability (although please note that notability is distinct from popularity). I'm talking about verifiability. Pagrashtak 19:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Alright, I'll bite. Let's concede that the article needs to be trimmed dramatically (as it would were there a dozen copper-bottomed sources). Beyond that, what do you challenge? That the game exists? The basics of what the game is about? That it plainly has a lot of people interested in it? That it sports a respectable Alexa rank? WP:RS does not forbid (and, indeed, concedes) that self-published sources can be used for certain elements. Plainly some of the elements are sourceable: the existence of the corporation, that it is rated "E," for example.  RGTraynor  19:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Would game reviews by prominent websites/rating sites work? 63.204.151.5 (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • For sure. That's exactly what a reliable third party source is. So long as the website was prominent and it wasn't just a user generated review, it would establish notability, and provide verifiable information about the game. Randomran (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RG, I'm not challenging anything, I'm simply stating that we can't write an article if there are no reliable third-party sources. From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." In your keep statement you say you can't find any third-party sources, so I'm asking you to justify your statement against Wikipedia:Verifiability. Pagrashtak 20:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I already did. That you don't like my rationale is plain, but I'm not going fishing for another one just because of that.  RGTraynor  13:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above delete !votes. While I'm of the opinion that WP should allow for more articles than it does, unless reliable, secondary, sources can be found, this article fails the policies of verifiability and reliable sources. And just my opinion, but 25k Alexa is nothing. --Izno (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no assertion of notability via verifiable reliable sources independent of the topic. Agree with Izno that 25k Alexa isn't really that impressive. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:05, 2 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roblox&oldid=1138310942"