Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FCIV.NET

FCIV.NET

[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)

Lacks notability, only 1 article that the author probably wrote themselves Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Software. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG Komskie (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC) — Komskie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete: I strongly object to deleting this Wikipedia article about the game FCIV.NET. The article is of sufficient notability, because it is written about an actual unique game called FCIV.NET. The game has real players who regularly play the game. FCIV.NET is a 3D fork of the game Freeciv, which is separate and distinct from the game Freeciv. The article does cite an external reference from civfanatics.com, which was published by civfanatics.com independently. I am trying to make a positive impact in the world by running the FCIV.NET project, with the goal to make a 3D version of Freeciv. Therefore please don't delete this article. The article about FCIV.NET should stay, because it describes an actual, real free and open source PC game that players can play, and the game has been described by other external sources, such as civfanatics.com. I have added additional external sources, such as https://freeciv.fandom.com/wiki/FreecivWebClient which describes FCIV.NET
- "only 1 article that the author probably wrote themselves" - This is a FALSE statement. The article on civfanatics.com was not written by the author, this article was published by civfanatics.com independently. Nybygger — Preceding undated comment added 20:14, 5 March 2023‎ (UTC) by the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Delete Simply being a game that exists does not qualify something for Wikipedia, otherwise it would be inundated with advertising and spam. While I respect the decision to make it free/open-source, it still needs significant coverage from WP:RS in the press. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a possible redirect target (main Freeciv article - the article subject is mentioned in its lead). Pavlor (talk) 10:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This game Fciv.net is separate from Freeciv, because Fciv.net is 3D and a browser game, therefore a separate article. Nybygger (talk) 07:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Freeciv as WP:ATD. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 11:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Don't Delete and Don't Redirect to Freeciv~~ FCIV.NET is a separate project from Freeciv, because FCIV.NET uses the Three.js 3D engine, has 3D graphics and is a browser game, and a separate project on GitHub. Freeciv is a 2D desktop game. FCIV.NET is a good, positive and fun, free open source browser game. Wikipedia should encourage new up-and-coming art and games, which has only modest mentions still on the Internet. Please help encourage new games and art projects online, not censor projects like FCIV.NET. This is an example of an independent news source covering the game: https://www.civfanatics.com/2022/12/19/fciv-net-december-2022-showcase/ Further, the game is notable because it is an alternative to the Civilization games, is free, in 3D and can be played online in a browser, unlike the commercial Civ games. Thank you. Nybygger 21:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nybygger: I feel like people aren't directly addressing you, and obviously you're incredibly passionate about this project so I want to make sure to. None of us are saying it should deleted because the game isn't good. To be honest, this kind of thing is right up my alley personally as a longtime Freeciv player who feels that the graphical interface is a bit dated nowadays. But Wikipedia is not a lot of things, including an indiscriminate collection of information and in order for a game to be covered here, it must meet our general notability guideline. The question is -- is there something that we're missing? Is there coverage of FCIV.net in multiple independent and reliable (see our list of reliable sources that WikiProject video games has put together here) stories? And is that coverage significant? The Civfanatics post that you shared is a blog post with a passing mention of the game, and unfortunately doesn't pass muster.

I just want to be clear here, that the discussion here isn't reflective of how we feel about the game and that this isn't censoring or an attack on it -- but is instead a reflection of the scant amount of coverage it has received so far. Nomader (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If you can show that FCIV.NET has been the subject of significant coverage from independant, reliable sources, I will change my vote. The game being good, or positive, or fun, or new does not make it notable. -- Mike 🗩 21:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As already said by others, it is lacking significant coverage. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources come up in a search through WP:VG/RS sources and a google search points at nearly zero external coverage. Nomader (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a source: https://www.civfanatics.com/2022/12/19/fciv-net-december-2022-showcase/

I remember Wikipedia deleting the article about the company I work for, which is quite famous in Norway. This delete and cancel culture is getting too much censorship! Nybygger (talk) 06:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Don't Delete Please~~ Here's a YouTuber who made a video of the 3D version of Freeciv: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7b-kitw91kg There are others also. I will keep posting links here forever when people make YouTube videos, write articles and blogposts about FCIV.NET. In my opinion, Wikipedia is censoring the small people, and favoring the main-stream content creators who are part of the current Western society. This feels like censorship in the Soviet Union.Nybygger 21:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
YouTubers and small blogposts about the game doesn't make it notable. It being a "good, positive and fun, free open source browser game" doesn't make it notable. This is not "censorship in the Soviet Union," this is the game not being notable. It's based on sources, not your own opinion on the game, and as it stands, it looks like it doesn't have any sources that give it significant coverage. reppop^talk 18:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage in reliable sources per WP:VGSOURCES. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The game does have coverage by external sources, for example https://www.civfanatics.com/2022/12/19/fciv-net-december-2022-showcase/ Nybygger (talk) 06:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The own author is voting to not have this article deleted. Additionally, there's no coverage of "FCIV.net" and it's completely unknown, it meets none of the requirements to have an article as well as WP:GNG, and the list goes on. Wikipedia must delete this article! ImperialMajority (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The game has been covered by Civfanatics.com, on Twitter, YouTube and Reddit. Nybygger (talk) 06:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, those are not reliable sources. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What definition of reliable? This word reliable is open to interpretation. Nybygger (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Open to interpretation? Not according to Wikipedia. You are fighting a losing battle. ArcAngel (talk) 08:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

The topic of FCIV.NET has been covered significantly in 2 articles in the reliable source Civfanatics.com (a civ game news site) which is independent of Fciv.net and it's authors. Nybygger (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom, and SALT per continued disruptive comments by Nybygger. ArcAngel (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have some political agenda, for wanting this article deleted so much. The game does have coverage on Civfanatics.com, Reddit and Youtube. Nybygger (talk) 06:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not political agenda. You're just promoting the heck out of the game, and that's not allowed on Wikipedia. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is an example of cancel culture in the current western world. Nybygger (talk) 06:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "cancel culture" to delete an article on Wikipedia. Maybe Wikipedia is not the right place for you. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG. Redirect to Freeciv would be an option. Gusfriend (talk) 10:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable external source: https://www.civfanatics.com/2022/12/19/fciv-net-december-2022-showcase/ Nybygger (talk) 06:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You posted that same link four times already. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I respond with the sources for the article, which these comments claims don't exist. Nybygger (talk) 06:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But it is not independent of the subject to establish notability. Reddit and Youtube aren't considered reliable sources, either. ArcAngel (talk) 07:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nybygger, please stop your disruptive editing immediately. You do not have to repeat yourself again and again. Reddit, YouTube and a dedicated fansite are not reliable sources. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sign of notability. It's starting to WP:SNOW here. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]