Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FCIV.NET Freeciv 3D version

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FCIV.NET Freeciv 3D version

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

AFD nom due to draftify/speedy delete contest. Sources 1, 3, and 4 are routine coverage, and 2, 5, 6, 7, aren't about the 3D version. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 19:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 19:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Attempted recreation FCIV.NET after it was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FCIV.NET. Note that FCIV.NET is indeed "FCIV.NET Freeciv 3D version". – Pbrks ^(t • c) 19:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Near identical content, created by the same editor as the last version, with no real improvement. Almost, but maybe not quite, a WP:CSD G4. -- ferret (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete I object to deleting this article. There are now 7 sources about this topic. If you study all 7 sources you will see that they are in fact about this fine game. The statement from Sungodtemple here is false. Nybygger (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sungodtemple's statements are not false. Source #1 is a forum, invalid per WP:USERG. Source #2 is unreliable self-published social media, also invalid for notability. Source #3 is a routine announcement with precious little actual coverage. Source #4 is neither reliable nor SIGCOV and just refers to the slashdot forum post. Source #5 is an unreliable fan site, and isn't about the 3D version at all. Source #6 and #7, same as #5. There's no sigcov from reliable secondary sources here. -- ferret (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article! They Nay-sayers are all wrong!! Fciv.net is an open source, grass-roots Movement! Just watch this YouTube video about it: https://youtube.com/shorts/f_wxzEf68SM?feature=share Nybygger (talk) 09:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Youtube is not a valid source. Why do we keep having the same article under different titles? Something's afoot. Oaktree b (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There was a discussion earlier this year that found the subject non-notable. WP:AGF applies as well, with regards to claiming other editors are lying. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. This is an accurate article about the game. There are plenty of links about this game, even though they are perhaps not of the highest quality. As I understand, the previous version was deleted for not having enough references. So you get a new page with more references. There is no bad intent here. I also do not think that saying a statement is false is the same thing as saying others are lying. It's more a disagreement than an accusation. Jove74 (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC) — Jove74 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
None of this addresses the deletion nomination. Sergecross73 msg me 22:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The previous version wasn't deleted for not having enough references in it. We don't delete things just because the references are missing from the article at a given moment in time. It was deleted because no one could find suitable sourcing about the topic that would demonstrate WP:GNG. And that has not changed. There's a difference between "suitable sources aren't in the article" and "suitable sources don't exist". This is a case of the latter. -- ferret (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jove74 (talk · contribs)'s only edit is that comment. Smells socky. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 17:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am friendly to the game but I am nobody's sock puppet. Jove74 (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, it's always seen as very suspicious when someone makes a new account and their first edit is to go comment at an AFD. That's not a natural first move on Wikipedia. It's almost always a WP:SOCKPUPPET, WP:MEATPUPPET, or WP:CANVASS issue. Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per source analysis by ferret Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the previous AfD, I mentioned a possible redirect to the main FreeCiv article, which was not enough for the few "keep votes". Although I still think FCIV.NET could be covered by that article, the redirect (with FCIV.NET name or similar) may be created after this AfD. If the best source in the article is one short news on root.cz (here I don't share Ferret's assessment of reliability of that website), there is simply no coverage in reliable sources to write an article in encyclopedia. Pavlor (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, root.cz is a fine reliable news source. 2A02:2121:62B:CF74:0:0:5999:43A4 (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pavlor FCIV.NET from the prior AFD is currently a redirect. I think this new name was used because they didn't understand how to edit a redirect or avoid following it. -- ferret (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also seems to exist under Freeciv, [1] also for deletion. Oaktree b (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that Nybygger was previously blocked for two weeks by PhilKnight, after being disruptive in the previous deletion discussion. It seems Nybygger is still hell-bent on keeping (some form) of the article and is still saying WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 17:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked Nybygger for 2 days, not 2 weeks. PhilKnight (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. But my point still stands: they haven't learned anything from the previous discussion by recreating the article. I'd call that disruptive editing. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The new article name was in good faith. This new article title is more descriptive and less ambiguous. I honestly believe that I am on the good side of history in this case. Thank you. Nybygger (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you, in good faith, wish to create an article, But you need to make a better effort to understand our notability and sourcing standards though if you're going to keep making articles on Wikipedia, or this is going to keep happening. It's no coincidence that editors unanimously still believe that it doesn't meet our standards. If you understood the standards better, you'd understand the problem better. Sergecross73 msg me 12:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is the threshold for notability on Wikipedia? Is a big American website noteable, while a French and Czech, Slashdot (!!), and game-fan sites, and multiple YouTube videos, are anti-noteable? Why is Freeciv scheduled for deletion, while Civilization_(video_game) is not? Does Wikipedia not have enough hard-drives to store everything any more? Freeciv is available to every person on this planet for free, while Civilization is only available to a small fraction who can afford.Nybygger (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Wikipedia:Notability? ArcAngel (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your response is exactly what I'm referring to. A person who understands the notability standards would not think that's a valid argument. This would be a lot less frustrating for you if you take the time to learn what we're all trying to tell you. Sergecross73 msg me 01:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt for attempting to circumvent a previous deletion. ArcAngel (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This looks like an interesting project with a passionate community. It sadly seems to be common for people who are enthusiastic about these sort of independent games to strongly agitate recognition through creating articles here that fall very short of the site's editorial standards and rules, here in terms of WP:GNG. It's a shame that in this case it has been very difficult to convey an understanding of the standards to those involved. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2023 (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.