Talk:Utopia (1998 video game)

Repost of Utopia (online game)

A tag has been placed on Utopia (online game) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template {{hang on}} underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you.

Procariot (talk) 08:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Article was absolutely not similar Articles were deleted before (at least Definition, Story, History and References). Previous Articles looks like a description from Jolt Online Gaming page. So, it is not G4.

Procariot (talk) First of all, the reference from Kneebone, James. "Digger Interviewing Mehul Patel". Retrieved 7 November 2006 are under rule of Video_games/Sources#Fansites —Preceding undated comment added 13:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC).

Exactly, they're fansites, which are not reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as we require. Reliable sources do not include the publisher's site, most fansites, open wikis, and reviews by non-professionals, which is what all these references are. This is the reason the article was deleted before. Wyatt Riot (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Procariot (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC) 1) As I understood from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Fansites, some of Fansites ARE reliable.

2) Added an reference to reliable site: http://www.mcvuk.com/press-releases/38152/Swirvecom-acquisition

Yes, some fansites can be reliable. They're generally the big-name publications (often actually printed) with a large editorial staff, material written by authors who are often notable themselves, clear editorial policies, and so on. In many cases, the fansite itself is written about in reliable sources. In those cases, yes, fansites can be considered reliable, but those are probably 0.0001% of all the fansites out there.

We also don't put much stock in material written by the company itself, especially in the form of press releases. A website which does nothing but release press releases isn't a reliable source. Please take a look at WP:Sources for some examples of the reliable, third-party published sources that we require. Wyatt Riot (talk) 05:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Procariot (talk) 06:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Ok. Could any of http://www.gamefaqs.com/webonly/916589-utopia/reviews these articles be reliable?

GameFAQs allows pretty much anyone to write reviews, so they're not reliable at all. According to the WikiProject Video games guide to sources, we can only rely on GameFAQs for providing game release dates. Wyatt Riot (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Oke, I agree that the refereces are not reliable, but the game does exits and the story does match with the game and game play. So it might be enough just to shorten the story. Delete the information from doubtfull fan pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.148.91 (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Notability and references based on reliable sources are inclusion criteria here on Wikipedia. It's not that we don't think the game exists, but more that we don't think it's important enough or written about by legitimate journalists to be included in the encyclopedia. If the article is deleted, it can always be recreated if or when the sources appear. Wyatt Riot (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I deleted some information from doubtfull fan pages Procariot (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)