Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massively single-player online game

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 REDIRECTED to Spore (video game). Article history is there if there's something worth merging, but I didn't see anything. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massively single-player online game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log

)

• Keep. From some of the coverage its had, I'd say there is some notability. WilliamH (talk) 10:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment All those comments are quoting a single individual, and all in relation to Spore (video game) -- perhaps this article should be merged into that until the term becomes more widely used? -- Ratarsed (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yep, there oughtta be a
  WP:NEO word has been used besides a single person promoting the game he created, as cited by the article itself. Potatoswatter (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I personally trust our ability to discuss more than our ability to generate rules. Adding a section to ATA likely wouldn't actually stop people, and we seem to be doing fine by pointing problems out on a common-sense basis, so I'm fine with the current state of affairs. --Kizor 14:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I brought forward those links discriminately because I felt that they would add to the discussion, so please comment on them instead of calling me blind; that's a bit ad hominem. Notwithstanding I am inclined to agree that since this term is not very extended, keeping it in Spore (video game) is probably the best way to go. WilliamH (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the
  list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete this article, then recreate it if this term ever gets more commonly used (preferably in games made by more than one company).
  (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge. This has apparently been in very limited use, and has only been used to refer to a single game, so there's not much point in having this article separately. It's still a feasible search term, is it not? (I imagine that a lot of people who hear it would check it here or on Google, where we're the first result.) Add a line to the Spore article and redirect this article to that section. --Kizor 14:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Spore (video game) per Kizor above. If this term has only been used in reference to one game, it doesn't need its own article (especially when it basically just consists of a definition). Terraxos (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  :. 20:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to Spore (video game)- non-notable except in its use by one person describing one game - content belongs there. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect This is just a term invented by the makers of spore to help market and describe their game. Cannot be a notable concept without it being used independently of Spore. Randomran (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to
  MuZemike (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment This phrase, being merely a play on another popular phrase, has been used in other contexts, e.g. to describe
  soloing in MMOs, or SP games with MMO-like worlds (Elder Scrolls).[1][2] If the content is merged, I don't think the redirect should necessarily point to Spore. Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Personally, I found the article useful. Is there any other important criteria for whether an entry is notable? 24.126.149.16 (talk) 07:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure. The definition of notable is
  WP:N, one of the most enthusiastically applied ones in our barrel-o-rules, and it requires external coverage. Personally I liken it to Wikipedia's teenage identity crisis: certainly it has been used en masse to delete inappropriate or unencyclopedic content without generally accepted definitions of appropriate or encyclopedic.
  
  Anyway, something can be both useful and best off covered somewhere else than its own article, which is why I'm in favor of merging. --Kizor 08:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• comment - some of the barrel of rules mentioned above. See this essay for a condensed version of why
  NPOV - the fact that you find it interesting does not mean that other readers will. Moving the material into an article about the only product the word has ever been used to describe will still have the material available for people like you who think its interesting. If you can find other policies that support the inclusion of this material as a stand-alone article, please feel free to include them. -- The Red Pen of Doom 08:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Merge - to Spore (video game). Fairly straightforward merge for a term specific to one game. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Spore (video game) until and unless the term is used to describe multiple games. Oren0 (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Casting aside it's lack of notability as a phrase "massively single-player online games" sounds nothing more than a buzzword, how can you have a single player online game? Are there really going to be OTHER games apart from Spore that call themselves Massively single-player online games? 86.158.141.139 (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not required in an encyclopedia unless it becomes widely used. 2p0rk (talk) 12:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

86.158.141.139 (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - to Spore (video game). Until another game fits this moniker it would be silly for it to have its own article. Since the game isn't even released yet, reviewers might find a better label to apply to it anyway. Forteblast (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's a legitimate article, even if it's a stub. Chillax, clueless zealots. It has no business being merged to Spore (Video Game), because it's already mentioned there, and a more thorough explanation would not flow well. And there's no reason to delete it as it is a notable term. But whatever, I'm sure the fail will keep rolling on. --Hilscher (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:AGF Protonk (talk) 05:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete The concept of "playing alone online" has some secondary sourcing but MSOG doesn't net much in a careful google search (apart from the repeating of Wright's comments about spore. Protonk (talk) 05:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge This should only become an article on its own if there are other games which are an MSO (Clarkey4boro (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• Merge - to Spore (video game). Even when other games exist, still would have to wait for RSs to use this term.Yobmod (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - an often used phrase, but almost always as a lame joke. On it's own it is not a notable concept --T-rex 18:57, 24 June 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.