Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spaceships of EVE Online (2nd nomination)

{{ns:0|G}}

:{{la|Spaceships of EVE Online}} ([{{fullurl:Spaceships of EVE Online|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spaceships of EVE Online (2nd nomination)}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

This was nominated for deletion in April 2007 - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spaceships of EVE Online - and kept. However, I believe that the those calling for a keep were largely motivated by WP:ILIKEIT arguments, and additionally, that community standards have moved even further away from such articles being acceptable.

For example, Ashenai argued that "Pages like this one are par for the course for popular MMORPGs, see Runescape skills, or Classes in World of Warcraft." However both of those articles have since been deleted and redirected via AfD discussions here and here.

The article is 100% game guide material, and Wikipedia is not a game guide. There are no reliable third-party sources. In short, this article's content is of exactly the same nature as many that have previously found consensus to delete.

Additionally the entire content can be found on www.eve-wiki.net, see [http://www.eve-wiki.net/index.php?title=Ships]. Stormie (talk) 05:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The EVE page is too large to support the ship page as well, while Wikipedia isnt a game guide - ships are the main part of the game. So it is notable and there is no way to merge it. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 06:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• According to Wikipedia:Notability, a topic is presumed to be notable if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If you could add references to such sources to the Spaceships of EVE Online article, that would go a long way towards supporting keeping the article. --Stormie (talk) 06:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• delete not one reliable source independent of the subject. WP:GAMEGUIDE means what it says, NOT "tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides", and this is a game guide. Sites like [http://eve.wikia.com eve.wikia.com] and [http://www.eve-wiki.net www.eve-wiki.net] are appropriate places for this sort of material. The EVE Online article is long, and brushes right up to game guide material in some sections. The material in Spaceships of EVE Online should not be merged there, it ought to be deleted. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• delete. WP:GAMEGUIDE and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Not sourced. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 06:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• comment I'm curious: What would happen if I nominated, say, the 10 or so Star Wars planet lists for the same reason? Makes me wonder. --Izno (talk) 08:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

*Merge. Either lose everyone's work by force, or cut and paste it somewhere else congenially. Don't delete the whole thing! (If you're more of an inclusionist, pretend I'm saying keep). Xavexgoem (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Retracted per Minimaki's comment below. I just get the feeling this is dealing a sharp blow... Xavexgoem (talk) 09:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• As I said in my nomination, this content is all on eve-wiki.net, so nothing would be lost. --Stormie (talk) 09:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

***Um, yes, it would. eve-wiki is terrible unless you're looking for shield resistance bonuses by level or something. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 12:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Well, apparently it is there; it's odd that I didn't know about it. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 12:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Pure gameguide material. Of course the work should not be lost - just put it to another wiki. --Minimaki (talk) 09:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, the game is obviously the primary source for this sub-article of EVE Online. Ships in EVE Online appear to play a major role in the game (and the virtual economy of the game), much like Businesses and organizations in Second Life play a major role in Second Life. Does this article tell you how to beat EVE Online? This article doesn't look like a how-to guide or an instruction manual to me. I'm sure there are reviews of EVE Online that mention the ships — much like review of Star Wars mention Star Destroyers or TIE fighters. --Pixelface (talk) 10:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

:*That the article cannot comply with WP:RS (is entirely based on primary sources and game play experience) simply underlines that this article is of no interest to anyone not playing the game. It's all in-universe. By contrast, the Businesses and organizations in Second Life and TIE fighter articles (for all their failings) do relate the subjects to aspects in *this* world. Pete.Hurd (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

::*Game reviews are generally considered reliable sources for videogames and there are many reviews for Eve Online that could be cited in this article.[http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/430571.asp] [http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/925163.asp] [http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/933146.asp] [http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/944159.asp] [http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/eveonlineexodus] [http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/eveonlinerevelations] [http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/eveonlinetrinity] [http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/eveonlinethesecondgenesis] The in-universe material can be rewritten. And I'm sure some of the reviews contain information on the development and design of ships in the game. Google News also turns up several potential third-party sources.[http://news.google.com/archivesearch?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-30,GGLD:en&um=1&tab=wn&q=%22eve+online%22] --Pixelface (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. As a player of eve and an editor of the Eve Wiki, deleting this article would ruin a lot of people's live. A quick look at any of the ship's entries show utter crap; while, numerically, the content is good, it lacks focus, presentation and centralization, which is great and easy to find here. The information can not be merged to the main page for the game, as it is far too large. Barring someone pointing out that OTHERSTUFF exists, we have lists of things in Second Life, lists of things in Star Wars, lists of things in Final Fantasy universes... this isn't different. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 12:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as an appropriate break out article. RSs for the actual obvious content of a work of fiction like a game can be the work itself. It's of interest to people like me who have heard about the game and want a reasonable amount of detail to understand what people are talking about. DGG (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as verifiable and notable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keeep The main article could not contain the amount of details required to provide a comprehensive overview of this critical part of a notable game. Breakout article - Fosnez (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I can see tendencies to the article becoming a game guide, however, it largely describes objectively what the ships in EVE Online are about. An example for a more game guide-like section is Command ships. It says, the "Vulture can mount, arguably, the best [sub-capital] shield tank in the game." Thus the paragraph provides a recommendation to some degree instead of writing about the characteristics of Command ships neutrally. I consider these sections slip-ups that we can and should improve upon. However, I don't think these mistakes justify it to call the article as a whole a game guide. I'd rather see us keeping and improving the article instead of deleting it.
  The lack of sources that meet all of Wikipedia's standards, i.e. in terms of notability and no original research and reliability, is a valid concern though. And while the developer hosts a [http://www.eve-online.com/itemdatabase/EN/ships/default.asp database about ships] and other in-game items on its website this database does not contain all the information that's currently part of the article. For one thing the database isn't complete as it lacks information e.g. about the so-called Jump Freighters. Then there are also Unique and Limited Edition ships and Game management, event and prototype ships that are hardly officially documented. To me it's a valid concern that there's currently no way to completely validate the article with reliable sources. I don't see a way around this issue, however, I think it's the very nature of EVE Online and it therefore shouldn't count as a argument towards deleting the article. I say we keep it.
  -- Aexus (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, qualified; if not, Merge. However inclusionist I may feel, those claiming WP:Gameguide do have a point. Racial distinctions are written too in-universe, there appears to be overuse of terminology and data, and so forth. I would point out, though, that the article violates the spirit of the policy more than the letter. However, as Pixelface noted, the whole point of EVE Online is the ships. I would also add that, due to the nature of the game, EVE's ships are more important than, say, WoW's classes, because EVE places much more emphasis on ships and items (armour, weapons, etc.) as opposed to character skills or rank. Without a doubt, the ships of EVE are easily the most important aspect of the game, and given their number and variations, this seems to be a textbook case for a subpage. Severe pruning seems to be called for, however. Lastly, if the vote goes 'no', I would urge a merge to the primary EVE page--not necessarily in terms of keeping current content; rather, in order to sufficiently cover the primary aspect of the game, an article on EVE Online must have at least a sizable section on ships. Ourai ^тʃ_с 03:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 08:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and clean-up The problem the article currently has is that it's latched onto the ships and started going into meaningless details, such as the tables of ship names, which tell the average reader absolutely nothing. This is in effect a large, spun-out gameplay article and needs to reflect that. There's a lot of interviews etc. out there covering this game, they should be used to anchor it in reality and provide reception and development details. It could be a very tidy article. Someoneanother 21:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or massive cleanup. The short answer is that if there's anything here that could possibly blossom into a WP:GA-worthy article it's very well hidden. Here's an overview of the most egregious problems (even before the problems of things that aren't there, like a grounding in reality):
• Obvious minutae: A bulleted list of module slot numbers, and over a dozen tables solely for listing the names of racial variations on ships.
• Reiteration of information in lingo: "railgun-based offensive weaponry" and "bonuses to kinetic damage" convey the same information two different ways. The former is relatively easy to understand. The latter is simply redundant gamer-speak.
• Overemphasis on flavor text: There is this tendency to place emphasis on the description of items equal to that of their function, and often unnecessary attempts to tie the two together lead to redundancy and wordiness. Example problem sentence: "It would seem that this type of emitter is the most advanced, since Caldari have the strongest shields of any race." Also a problem: the word "presumably".

:Hopefully this article won't lounge about for another year doing nothing upon which we'll have this discussion yet again. Nifboy (talk) 05:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. In addition to the reasons stated above, there are only nine sources, yet the article is 74 KB. An article of that size should certainly have more sources in order to be reliable. --Jedravent (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

: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.