Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endless Online (2nd nomination)
on the exact same grounds in the last AfD. I really don't think verifiability is a problem here. The way I see it, games and game publishers can be used as a source (and they'll undoubtedly be more than glad to provide information about their games!), that's just normal ''encyclopedic'' research. For example, if I state "''Ultima VII'' runs in 320x200 MCGA graphics mode", I don't need a frigging game researcher to write that in a peer-reviewed paper before I can use that fact. It's written in the ''game box.'' ("256-color VGA graphics". There it is. I kid you not. I can provide a scan and I swear I won't modify it.) I can install the game and run it in DOSbox and by golly, it runs in 320x200 MCGA mode. This, however, would be Original Research: "''Baten Kaitos: Eternal Wings and the Lost Ocean|Baten Kaitos'' is an example how the Japanese are moving away from cloning ''Ultima III'' and going toward cloning ''Ultima IV'': the player's relationship with the gameworld is affected by their choices. The game features plotlines and clicés of ''Final Fantasy'' series, game mechanics of ''Magic: the Gathering'' and marrying it with good doses of  BioWare Humour&reg;." ''That's'' original research and op-edding. "New analysis and synthesis", schoolbook example of what's frigging underlined in . ''That'' belongs to my game blog, not Wikipedia.In order to provide accurate information, we ''have'' to accept the game publisher as an accurate source of information, as they know best what the game is about. What we shouldn't allow them to do is to write the articles. The OR policy doesn't say anything about ''New collections of sourced facts'', because if those are banned, we'd ban ourselves by definition. In closing, I ''swear'' I'll quit now. I suck. I know
— User:Wwwwolf, 18:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NOR (Wikipedia:No original research)