Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gladiatus
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. Sr13 08:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completely non-notable spam for web game. Author(s) remove the speedy repeatedly in tag team. — Coren (talk) 04:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This page has been speedy-deleted twice. ●DanMS • Talk 04:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"If you disagree: Anyone except a page's creator may contest the speedy deletion of a page by removing the deletion notice from the page." I am not the page creator, so there is nothing wrong with me removing that tag. I do however find something wrong with marking a page within hours of its creation before it can even be made. This is a sister game to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OGame (they are both by the same company) and when done the page will resemble that one. Granted the people who made that page were forced to jump through hoops to get it off deletion row as well. Zynkin 05:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is why, despite the appearances of sock/meatpuppetry, I've given you the benefit of the doubt and listed the article on AfD instead of edit-warring any further. If the game is notable, then the article must state so (and, preferably, support that statement with reliable sources). As it stands, it reads like a simple advertisement meant to drum up membership, and simply removing the
{{db-web}}s without comment or fixes is non-productive. - You can make a case for the article here, but the simple existence of another game by the same company is not sufficient: notability is not transitive. — Coren (talk) 05:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- if you read the talk page you would of seen that i did leave comment so it was not done without comment.... The page is being developed. "Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete." Zynkin 05:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You can also create the article in a sandbox (User:Zynkin/Sandbox or User:Zynkin/Gladiatus) and then you don't have to worry about people deleting your unfinished work. Someguy1221 05:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- if I had created the page I would of done that but someone else did, and if their page gets deleted it becomes next to impossible for me to create a new page on the same topic because then people like coren come by three minutes latter and put up speedy delete tags and say this topic has already been deleted. While that shouldn't be a valid argument I have seen it work successfully time and time again. Reading through the rules for marking a page for deletion it clearly states that just because a page isn't finished is not a reason to mark it for deletion, in fact it expressly states to not mark newly created pages for deletion unless it is clearly vandalism or is in some way illegal/copyright infingment. Zynkin 05:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you actually read the speedy deletion policy? Someguy1221 05:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering I have quoted it a couple times now I would say the answer is yes, Have you read it? and while we are on that train of thought what is the point in asking if I have read it other than to just be blatantly insulting for no apparent reason? Zynkin 06:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because saying "it expressly states not to mark newly created pages for deletion unless it is clearly vandalism or is in some way illegal/copyright infingment" sounds like you're interpreting something out of it that it doesn't actually say. Someguy1221 06:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." as well as "Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete." There are more but there also is a rule against citing the rules too many times so I will allow you to read it. Zynkin 06:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's assume good faith guess the nominator considered all of that. Someguy1221 06:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." as well as "Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete." There are more but there also is a rule against citing the rules too many times so I will allow you to read it. Zynkin 06:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because saying "it expressly states not to mark newly created pages for deletion unless it is clearly vandalism or is in some way illegal/copyright infingment" sounds like you're interpreting something out of it that it doesn't actually say. Someguy1221 06:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering I have quoted it a couple times now I would say the answer is yes, Have you read it? and while we are on that train of thought what is the point in asking if I have read it other than to just be blatantly insulting for no apparent reason? Zynkin 06:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you actually read the speedy deletion policy? Someguy1221 05:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- if I had created the page I would of done that but someone else did, and if their page gets deleted it becomes next to impossible for me to create a new page on the same topic because then people like coren come by three minutes latter and put up speedy delete tags and say this topic has already been deleted. While that shouldn't be a valid argument I have seen it work successfully time and time again. Reading through the rules for marking a page for deletion it clearly states that just because a page isn't finished is not a reason to mark it for deletion, in fact it expressly states to not mark newly created pages for deletion unless it is clearly vandalism or is in some way illegal/copyright infingment. Zynkin 05:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (cur) (last) 17:11, 7 July 2007 Coren (Talk | contribs) m (635 bytes) (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD a7). using TW)
- (cur) (last) 17:05, 7 July 2007 Themorgster (Talk | contribs) (624 bytes)
- (cur) (last) 17:04, 7 July 2007 Themorgster (Talk | contribs) (849 bytes)
- (cur) (last) 17:02, 7 July 2007 Themorgster (Talk | contribs) (618 bytes) (←Created page with '== Gladiatus ==
9 minutes after the article was created.... my good faith is hard to muster within that time frame Zynkin 06:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no desire to argue over this. Have you considered fixing the article so that it claims notability instead? The fact that it had been previously deleted as not notable should have been a good hint that it would (as are all new pages, actually) be scrutinized. Removing the tags without fixing the fatal flaw it pointed out was, at best, very much unproductive. — Coren (talk) 07:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- your tag scared off the original maker from working on the page so now the rest of us are playing catch up. It is being worked on. Zynkin 07:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete -- CSD-A7. It doesn't even assert notability, let alone cite any reliable sources to back it up. --Haemo 08:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as A7. No sources, authors can't be bothered to fix this problem, no real debate necessary. --Dhartung | Talk 08:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A lot of ghits, but that could be expected for a web game. I can't find any reliable sources for it.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 09:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep its online nature makes it automatically verifiable (just click http://www.gladiatus.com/ - you can verify its existance). Wrt notability - I think Zynkin's comment in the talk page is good enough for notability. Frankly i've never come across an encyclopedia with video game entries until I found Wikipedia. Wikipedia clearly has a different notability criteria than from other encyclopedias when it comes to video games. —Tokek 12:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- CSD A7. Bart133 (t) (c) 18:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep page is still under development and needs clean up but that is to be expected from a day old page. Sources and external links have been added and work is being done to improve the page. Zynkin 22:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete - "What advantage does a premium account give you?" This is pure WP:SPAM Corpx 02:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the A7 complaint against the page has been resolved, it was simply a matter of giving the authors enough time to write the page. The point of the page is to describe gladiatus in an encyclopedic manner, instead of taking the easy way out and just calling for it to be deleted it would be infinitely more helpful to comment on the talk page about how the authors can revise the article to better meet this goal. Zynkin 15:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless it becomes more balanced; while NPOV may be asserted because it isn't praiseful either, mentioning of positive features could be read as implicit praise. Plus, it still reads like an advert or press release. SamBC 13:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I play this game myself but in all honesty there just isn't enough sources, if any, to establish any kind of notability. Zynkin you can move it to user space and keep working on it but the way it looks now it is going to be deleted. MartinDK 06:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a source for the 500.000 accounts worldwide claim? Also, press releases and online game reviews really do not establish notability. You need to dig up some non-trivial press coverage by established reliable sources. WP:WEB is is not WP:MUSIC or any of the other forgiving guidelines out there, there needs to be proof of non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. MartinDK 07:18, 13 July 2007 (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.