Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PlaneShift (video game)

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. This was a tricky one to review, as there is an overwhelming majority in favour of keeping this article. However, many of the arguments I have reviewed are substantially lacking in substance, or relevance; furthermore, many have come from single-purpose accounts. While their arguments have been given due consideration, many do not provide the policy-based arguments or sources that we require, and therefore some "keep"s are asserting reliable sources which are simply not considered reliable.

That is not to say, however, that all of the "keep"s are a result of this canvassing. The "delete"s put across good arguments and successfully discounted some of the sources and arguments provided. After discounting the arguments I did not consider strong enough, I arrived at a consensus to delete, and believe this decision is an appropriate use of admin discretion. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PlaneShift (video game)

[edit]
PlaneShift (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
AfDs for this article:
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Game has been in development since 2004, but is still in alpha stage. Few, if any, secondary sources and much of the editing to this article has been done by one or more of the game's developers. I am particularly interested in this game genre, especially since it is available for OS X, but had never heard of this game until I came across an unblock request for one of the editors, so I don't think it meets the standards of notability. —DoRD (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Article lacks any real sources. Previous AfD was keep and no concensus several years ago on the grounds that it would be properly sourced. Article hasn't changed any since then and is only having more trivial information added by creator of the game. No real player base or signs of notability. SpigotMap 13:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia clearly has an anti-PlaneShift bias for some reason I just can't fathom. This is a very important project, the only open source MMO of any repute, and it has over 500,000 players worldwide. You're telling me that's not notable? Ever hear of a little magazine called PC Gamer? They sure seem to think PlaneShift is notable. The German edition of PC Gamer anyway. In conclusion, this AFD is a clear violation of WP:NPOV, WP:LIBEL, and WP:NPA. Keep your hands off my Planeshift, Wikipedia! Lucap1978 (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying PlaneShift has or has had 500,000 players is an outright misleading lie. It simply has had that many accounts created. That in no way equates to number of actual players or even game downloads, as seen in my comment below. Poehappy (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The previous AfD referred to above is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PlaneShift (computer game). It did indeed conclude with "no consensus". Much of the discussion there was argument about what Wikipedia's policies and guidelines say, rather than about whether this article had reliable sources. If I wade through all that to look at the relevant parts of the discussion, I find that the "keep" arguments are to a large extent based on "I know that there are reliable sources" without indicating what they are. When links to "sources" were provided they were mostly to trivial mentions, unreliable sources, or sources not independent of the subject, and often to sources failing by all three of these criteria. One of the sources given was to an online copy of an advertising poster for the game! (I kid you not.) I think that rather than "no consensus" the conclusion should have been "among those actually arguing in accordance with Wikipedia policy there is consensus for deletion". However, I sympathise with the administrator who worked through the great text wall in that discussion, and I do not criticise him/her for their decision, as it is very difficult to see the overall picture in such a mass. I think, in fact, that the whole situation was well summarised by Vassyana in the comment All sources provided that I have seen are trivial mentions and user-submitted articles & reviews. ... Despite the vigorous efforts to dig up sources, not a single non-trivial reference with appropriate editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking has been provided. Despite the vigorous endorsement of a fanbase, there seems to be little to no real-world notability for the project. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The situation has not progressed from how it was when the last AfD took place, as described above. The sources cited in the article are almost not independent, some of them are unreliable (blog post etc) and some are trivial mentions. No evidence at all of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree, a list of new sources have been added in the last week, including international collaborations. Lot more can be found on the net. --Xyz231 (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then i would say: WP:SOFIXIT. If there are plenty of reliable sources it would be no problem at all to add them to the article right? Even so, most sources added last week are trivial mentions or primary sources. That is - for me - the entire issue with this article. There are mentions here and there, but nothing really substantional. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 15:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I see there is some coverage on gaming websites, including a few news article's, and i don't doubt the 500.000 player claim which indicates this is at least more then a kitchen project. However, searches don't come up with anything that i would normally accept as a reliable source. For something in development 6 years already it received quite little press coverage. It would seem to be notable enough, but it lacks verifiability. Ill remain neutral for now, as i simply cannot decide if the amount of trivial coverage, awards and game size outweigh the lack of any "Real" references. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 14:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's not fall for WP:BIG. From what I see, 500,000 is the alleged number of all registered accounts. The number of actual players is probably less than one-tenth of that. According to the official website, the game only has hundreds of active players[1]. — Rankiri (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The game has hundreds of concurrent players, which is a lot different than the total audience. PlaneShift has a turnover of players in one day of several hundreds. --Xyz231 (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Sigh*. No, the "500.000 users" part was not a part of my "neutral" vote, but used to state the project is at least not made up or so minor that no one ever heard from it. Even so, i keep my vote at neutral. The article had reliable coverage independent of the subject and a claim to notability, but the "Significant" part is lacking here. As said there is some coverage on gaming websites, but most of those seem similar to press releases. There are quite a few mentions of the game in reliable sources, some not even gaming related, but i cannot seem to find any source that is more then a mention. In other words: Neutral. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 15:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To give a bit of reference on this '500,000' number, this is a result of a server query on February 11, 2007
Total PS accounts: 340,000+
Accounts never used: 112114
Total characters used less than an hour : 141557 (four characters can be made per account)
Total characters active more than ten hours: 9416
Accounts active in the last 30 days: 14787
Accounts created in the last 30 days: 18103
Accounts created in the last 30 days never used: 7614
Active accounts older than 30 days: 4297
Accounts active in the last week: 3632
Active accounts in the last day: 1021
I hope that brings things into perspective. If you want more current data, you can ask the developers to do another query. Note that the above figures include people who register more than one account (some very active players register 10 or more), accounts that never got an email activation and the user made another, accounts that were created without ever downloading the game (or downloaded and failed to run), people trying the game, leaving, then coming back to check it out and forgetting their old passwords, as well as a number of other factors that inflate the number of accounts far beyond the number of actual people who have tried the game. Poehappy (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your data is not sourced, and so not reliable. Anyway if that data was true, it shows a turnover of 3632 players in one week and 1021 in one day, which is surely more than needed to say it has lot of players. --Xyz231 (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, and btw — Poehappy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Again, you are confusing number of players with number of accounts created. The data was copied from this thread where Vengeance/Keith Fulton- Server Engine Leader, edited the data last. Also as said, have a dev query the server for up to date data. Of course, I assume you could claim that is also unreliable data as it is not from a 3rd party. Look, I don't really care if PlaneShift is deleted here or not. I simply thought I would shed some light on this arbitrary WP:BIG and wrongly used number of 'players'. If a yellow dog is sitting next to a gas station, it is not notable just because 1,000 people a day drive by that spot and see it, or even pet it. If it was a juggling dog with two heads, now that would be notable. Find more reasons why PlaneShift is a juggling dog, not a gas station. Poehappy (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC) By the way, thanks for the friendly contribution tag. Here's yours. — Xyz231 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. I suggest you read this as well. WP:ENN[reply]
  • Keep. PlaneShift has been a major influence to all free games in existance today, being one of the first to start the "free" genre, it has changed the life of hundreds of people, who contributed to the development and to the creation of a free virtual life world. It is today one of the very few, if not the only open source mmorpg engine with all needed features to make a real game. In additions there has been plenty of notable collaborations, and mentions which are in the page. Just search for PlaneShift on google, and you will find hundreds of sites where you can download the game. It has been reviewing in every single mmorpg web site, and in most magazines. If you are going to delete this article you will have to delete half of the articles present in wikipedia. --Xyz231 (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC) — Xyz231 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Those are not valid arguments? That's ridiculous, I'm out of here. You make this place a mess. Do whatever you want with the article. --Xyz231 (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the links that explain the problems with those arguments? At any rate, I am INTENSELY skeptical that this is among the first free games ever released. Or that "free" is a "genre". - Vianello (Talk) 03:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The majority of these sources, even though published by reliable sources, are contributed by the PlaneShift creator and/or PlaneShift developers, making them still primary sources. SpigotMap 15:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's your evidence of those claims? Why you challenges independent studies and other web sites? If that's not valid, then nothing is. --Xyz231 (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because many of them are not published by the staff of the magazine/game site/whatever. They are sites where anyone can submit a review. Just because they are on a notable site doesn't make them reliable sources. SpigotMap 15:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WoW 90+% of those are released by blizzard, reviews on game sites or whatnot. I say we request that WOW gets removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.32.39.251 (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was really excited when I heard about Planeshift, several years ago, but I was under the impression that the project was dead. All the sources being cited here (other than blogs and the primary source) are out-dated. If the notability was in question back then... Are there any new articles done on Planeshift? Spacexplosion (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few new ones including http://www.windows7download.com/win7-planeshift/cnztmxui.html for example --70.32.39.251 (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see where the article is in that source. Please point it out, all I see is a release and game description. SpigotMap 16:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It shows the current release, the date for the release, as gives a brief description. Also considering its a forums for windows 7 doesn't that show that its current? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.32.39.251 (talk)
It does do that, but it does not qualify as a reliable source and does not assert any notability. Thanks for the clarification. SpigotMap 16:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm in agreement with JamesBWatson. The last AfD was concluded with a keep only with the expectation that more sources would follow. There have been no new articles added that are not: trivial mentions, blog/forum posts, or download mirrors with a copy-paste description. Spacexplosion (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No edits except this page — Spacexplosion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Xyz231 (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the article you linked to? "Existing editors should act fairly, civily, not bite newcomers, and remember everyone was new at some time." I've edited before without an account, and participating in a AfD finally prompted me to register. I should not have to explain that. Would you like to defend yourself not being a sock puppet now? Spacexplosion (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Before I vote, I have a question. The article references what appears to be three independent reliable sources: one in Linux Format, another one in TUX Magazine, and one more in Spanish Linux Magazine. Why the nomination then? MagV (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because some people got banned for flaming Planeshift so they go around and flame everywhere else -note: apparently this is derogatory? Id be more then happy to prove what was said here. --70.32.39.251 (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Asking users to clean up the page and add sources is Meat Puppetting? Seems more like asking people to fix a problem. If sources are cleaned up then there seems no reason to delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.32.39.251 (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You gave a link to this AfD and asked users to "Join the Fight". You didn't say "Hey let's add sources to the article and improve its quality." SpigotMap 17:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That one line was removed happy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.32.39.251 (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe that there are a sufficient number of reliable third-party sources to demonstrate notability, although I'd agree that the present state of the article is disappointing. The list may not be exhaustive:
  • Brief review at GameDev.net, which is a reliable industry insider, alongside Gamasutra.
  • GamersHell has news articles, screenshots, etc.
  • StrategyInformer has details, screenshots, etc.
  • GameSpot has details, screenshots, etc.
  • MMORPG.com may be considered unreliable by some: open to debate. Contains some information.
  • GiantBomb provides some information.
  • mmo5.com may be considered unreliable by some: open to debate. Contains some information.
Going by the above, the two votes for deletion concern the sources cited within the article. Granted, the references are almost entirely derived from the subject's own website, but since there are reliable third-party sources that have not been included, I think the article should be kept and improved rather than deleted.  Mephistophelian † 17:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of these are WP:RS sources with significant coverage. Gamedev's coverage is very superficial; GiantBomb's page is fully editable; and the rest of the sites only provide basic listing descriptions like "PlaneShift is a free 3D MMORPG, and features 12 different races, AI controlled NPCs, and an evolving world". — Rankiri (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Out of the above sources, only the first looks to be written by an editor, the rest look like press releases and are on sites where anyone can press the "add game" button and submit a game. SpigotMap 17:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Significant coverage" according to wikipedia "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." It is one fourth of the article, sure it is not as long as the others, however it is a main topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.32.39.251 (talk)
here is another good one http://www.warcry.com/news/view/58063-Free-MMOG-Planeshift-breaks-100k-Players--70.32.39.251 (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As pointed out by others, the sources at linux-magazine.es, Warcry Network, gamedev.net and gamespot appear to be sufficient to establish notability. The awards won, according to the article, also establish notability.-gadfium 20:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything anywhere about being notable by mass minor notability rather then one major notable post? Sure someone could be paid to write an article on planeshift but would that make it more notable? PS: I did a thesis on it, does that count if its online? Personally I think that its not acceptable to use your own writing as a source.--76.90.200.238 (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, your thesis is not a reliable source SpigotMap 12:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See the issue is that if I hadn't said it was mine, it would be reliable, that's part of the issue. How do you and everyone else know what was submitted to other sites via the "Submit a game" (that i have yet to see on any site) button? If the text is IDENTICAL that is another story, however most of the time it is just smiler. If two people write about a yellow dog is them both saying its a yellow dog incorrect? Personally I can only think of so many ways to write that so that it doesn't sound exactly the same. --71.107.198.239 (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. Even if published to a notable source, it's up to the discretion of the editors to judge if a source is a reliable source or not. It's not only about where it's published but who published it. If a source is disputed it is brought to the attention of other editors to establish if the source is a reliable source or not. SpigotMap 14:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If your thesis is vetted by a thesis committee and then published by your university, then by Wikipedia standards it is a reliable source, and you should definitely add a citation to the article. Who wrote it and whether or not it is available online is irrelevant.
Note however that for purposes of establishing notability a source should also be independent of the subject, which may or may not be the case with your thesis. You can read up on notability if you want to understand the requirements better.
-- MagV (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, Gamespot has no significant coverage of the subject. The review in WarCry Network appears to be a blog entry[4]. The GameDev article only has a couple of repetitive paragraphs on the Crystal Space-based code and no actual coverage of the game itself. From these four sources, only linux-magazine.es seems to be acceptable. — Rankiri (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think PlaneShift is a very important Open Source MMORPG game. As far as I know there is no other OSS MMORPG game of this size in existance. Perhaps this alone does not qualify as inclusion in wikipedia but then I wonder why articles about similar (but less advanced) projects as WorldForge are not considered for deletion then? JorritTyb (talk) 11:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC) — JorritTyb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • PlaneShift (the game) is not Open Source, only the gaming engine is. The same could be said about Quake 3 -- the fact that the user base of this game does not understand this is rather disgusting. Donations to this game require you to sign over your copyrights. You create a rule, a map, or a character, and you want it used in the game? What do you think about losing the ability to ever give that creation to another open source game? Yes, this is the PlaneShift way. With this said, this should have nothing to do with vote. Evan Carroll (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course jorrit understands that, he wrote the engine after all, and is a major developer on its primary user, PlaneShift. 72.65.133.240 (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, PlaneShift as a game is not really open. As to Open Source, I'm in doubt on that. The engine itself is surely Open Source (it is GPL) but the art is not open. On the other hand the art is also not source. So all source that there is is actually open. But anyway. This has little to do with the validity of this article I believe. As to signing over your copyrights for art you contribute to PlaneShift, that is true. And personally I would not do it for my own games that I create. However, you still have the freedom to contribute and all art contributors know this license in advance very well. They don't step into this and then suddenly realize they cannot use their art in something else. The license and what they are allowed to do with it is made very clear to everyone. Also this fact is very well known in the community. There has been sufficient coverage and hype on this topic already. JorritTyb (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I believe the game's few sources are because of misleading publicity. The game itself is not open source and it seems as if these magazines all bring attention to it under the guise of open-ness. I don't believe the few sources qualify it for inclusion; and, I believe the sources that mention it along with words 'open', or 'gpl' and don't shed light on the proprietary license used for the actual game are dishonest at best. The game has never had a production release, and has stagnated for a decade without any societal contribution to the game-component. Evan Carroll (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This point is not valid at all. The openess has nothing to do with the request of deletion. I can easily argue that PlaneShift is more open than the 99% of the games in existance, because 99% are closed source. --Xyz231 (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editorial: The game is not open, if you believe the game is open and not proprietary (as compared to the engine) then you should strongly do some research before casting a vote. Start by reading the article in question. I only say that because at least 3 people have gotten this wrong. Evan Carroll (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • as there still seems to be some confusion about the license of the game, I'd like to add some clarification: while it's true that the major part of the game's data and art lies under a proprietary license, it's not true that *only* the source is GPL'd. there's also a minimalistic set of data and art available under the GPL on the svn repository [5] (check out art and trunk/src/server/database). While those may not reflect the data used by the official servers, they're still sufficient to start off your own server and explore the basic game mechanics. RlyDontKnow (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)— RlyDontKnow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Your point is not valid. Are you saying that only open projects can stay on Wikipedia? The openess of the project has nothing to do with the validity to keep the article or not. --Xyz231 (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is not valid as you are the creator of the game and have a major conflict of interest here. It does have something to do with the AfD as it helps establish if sources are valid or not. SpigotMap 18:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1) how do you know he is the creator 2) his point is still valid regardless. 3) he isnt the creator Talad gave up on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.32.39.251 (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, they banned Lucap1978 (talk · contribs) yesterday, didn't you notice? 72.65.133.240 (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Lucap1978 vandalized the article in a sneaky way[6] and then was blocked because they issued what appears to be a legal threat[7]. Also, Xyz123 stated that Lucap1978 is not who they claim to be[8]. —DoRD (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just would like to point out that User:SpigotMap is the only user that's continuosly adding banners (last one few minutes ago) to the PlaneShift (video game) to discredit the article and the game. He is deleting content since weeks, despite the work of plenty of other users to add useful references, information and completness to the article. You cannot find a single good addition from him to that page, just banners, removals of references, deletiion of content. --Xyz231 (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maintenance Templates are there to bring light to the fact that the article has problems. It has nothing to do with the article subject, it is simply so other Wikipedia editors know there is a problem with the page. If you fix the problems you're more then welcome to remove them. Furthermore, if you have a concern with my editing or my conduct, bring it up on the administrator's noticeboard, this is not the place. This page is for the discussion of deleting/not deleting this article. SpigotMap 21:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've reviewed the list of references now, and I this this game meets the standards of notability. I agree it's not a top notch game, but from my point of view the sources mentioned are enough to express a 'keep' vote. --64.119.157.82 (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. From what I can see, at least two sources already cited in the article provide reliable and independent coverage, and are sufficient to establish it's notability. Other considerations such as the game being in alpha stage, the article being edited by the game's creator or the game not being free can not be a basis for a deletion. MagV (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The ohloh sites main point is "Ohloh Analysis Summary" that's them saying THEY looked at it and verified it, think of it as a seal of approval. Also you just said there are 2 sources that fully meet the WP:RS the others can be questioned i suppose, although how can you prove that they were submitted by them? the ones with C&P text can be proved that way, the rest please inform me of how you know. Also what about the google talk's invite? while the talk itself was done by a developer the invite was not, as such google seems to think its notable. Again on warcry check the author "Thomas -Mystery- Valley posted on 29 October 2003 3:52 am" look at his other articles, not submitted by PS or AB. Also your lack of access to TUX does not make it non-notable you have to prove that its not a notable source. Also web3d.org and csc.com are secondary sources, even if they use primary sources to get some of there information. If they are not secondary sources, then there is no such thing. Everything gets its information from primary sources, then gets read and regurgitated by secondary sources. --76.90.200.238 (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - first of all, the references will need vetting for reliability. It's pretty indiscriminate and there are a lot of sites linked to that simply do not pass WP:RS. However, trawling through them I see one piece of significant coverage I'm happy to accept (About.com). I'm not completely convinced by OMGN or Warcry, I'll have to investigate further later. Marasmusine (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2010 (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/PlaneShift_(video_game)&oldid=1136108986"