Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlantean Wars (ATW)
- 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 10:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Atlantean Wars (ATW) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Apparently endorsement of their own game Skysmith 13:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
no we are merely players who think this game deserves to be mentioned here. and we will improve the article, where just getting some background data.--Phoenix4ever 14:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I made this wikipedia to help A) wikipedia with its grand collection of articles. B) for Atlantean wars, beacuase it deserves one. C)so people can look up (ATW) and learn things about it. If i wanted to advertise it i would have done a much better job trust me. I got approval of the current Admin of them game (1 out of 5 admins) so i continued to expand it with all the (necessary things) knowledge that seems fit for this article.
I do not break any policy's by making this article because i am not advertising it, nor did i make this article with out proper (ATW) approval.
so if this article gets deleted, it will be deleted knowingly that it did not advertise, or that i made it with out approval. And thank you Phoenix4ever for also posting. We acknowledge we are players, but we are not advertising. --Equnai 14:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I am the admin of ATW. They did contact me about it after they had already started, but I don't see any harm. I cautioned them about use of certain terms and other concerns I had and that the article be merely informational. But I don't see why wikipedia is objecting, since you carry pages of other games with similar themes(i.e. Galaxis_Online).
As long as the article is purely informational, what's the harm? Otherwise you need to edit your wiki better.
-- Lycurgus (ATW Admin)
- Delete for a lack of reliable sources. The article may or may not be an attempt to find some new players (which I'd call advertising), but it definitely has no sourced content and does not show (or even claim) notability. Number of players currently about 3,000. --Huon 15:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Lack of reliable source? uhm im not sure but ATW is the main source. i got all my intel from that site, what better source do you sugest? and did i use any terms such as ""join now, join, or any personal apinion about the game" i didnt. so it cant be advert. and what do you sugest should be added then? for your information i (and phoenix) am stil ajusting and creating the wiki article. its not even half way finished yet. but if by making it compleet shows it is a good source and reliable etc. i wil compleet it.
- Delete some notes on the above: I agree that the Galaxis Online article is similar, but that means that it should probably be deleted too. For the creators of the article, I'd recommend browsing a few Wikipedia policies and guidelines to understand why people might want to delete this article; most relevant might be notability, reliable sources, and verifiability. If you have any questions, leave a note on my talk page and I'll try to explain further. JavaTenor 18:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete In regards to the comment above about using ATW as a source, it only qualifies as a single primary source. Please remember, that subjects need assertion of notability from multiple non-trivial secondary sources. As of right now, the article does not meet that requirement. That is why I believe it should be deleted if left in its present state. I do not agree that they are trying to advertise. I'm going to assume good faith and presume that they are trying to inform people about the game. Equnai, the AFD process will take five days to run its course. I suggest that, in that time, you find some secondary sources that discuss the game and its history and work on finishing the article. A solid, well written artile would go a long way in proving that the game is notable. During the discussion, please be civil and remember to sign all posts with 4 tildes. (~~~~) --Cyrus Andiron
19:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC) - Delete. When we say "reliable sources" we mean non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable, independent, published sources. Until such exist, sorry. -- Ekjon Lok 20:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
well your not gonna let us have this wiki i can tell, i just joined and was planning on adding to more articles. wikipedia is supposed to be the biggest source of human knowledge, well i wanted to add to that, but it seemes you won't let us, well congratulations you scared someone away, and judging by all the other articles up for deletion many more will leave to. cya never, --Phoenix4ever 06:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Reads like an ad. It even has a disclaimer. The question is, what makes the game notable? I don't think that has been answered. There are hundreds of games just like this one, and no one cares about those either. So, why is ATW so special without mention of it in independant news sources? Oh, and the admin contesting the deletion seems to be a conflict of interest. Turlo Lomon 11:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
bey funx, and what does make ATW special? that a personal opinion (ich i didnt state in my not finished soon to be deleted article) wich isnt relevant. the fact that im writing an article on ATW is because i couldnt find any yet (i also couldnt find KoC, SGW etc.) so it accured to me, i could do wiki a favor by editing yet an other piece to an already large databse of knowledge. And as for the part that its only one source, tell me all of you how the hell can i find a second source if ATW is only 1 game? well? tik, tak. o wait i cant thats right cause its only one game ... ooo stupid me -_-, (ow btw that was sarcasme ^_^) im really disapointed in you, i truly am. i cant find a second source because there isnt any. and the disclaimer, why is that like its a "join now" sign? ive coem to the part where i am going to express my personal feeling and opinions now!!! ATW is a cool game, i found via my ant, who plays/played KoC at the time and i was in the same alliance. i kinda quited KoC cause i wanted to rule ATW. thats why im typing it now a year later. i thought to myself, why not give back a litle to that ATW comunity by making a kick but article and explaining every detail they worked so hard for to put it in. i didnt care about other ppl joining, it was suposed to be a guide for the ppl already joined. or so thats what i had in mind, i wanted to explain everything ATW had to offer, never once did i get the thought that this might raise there member count or what ever. i understand your points of view on the "recruiting" part, i cant persuade you to believe in the good of poeple, cause most of them are really bad (what gives you the conclusion that im any diferent? nothing thats right) and dont deserve any trust. but hell what does it matter, i made an article and you didnt even give it a week without saying it needs to go, so my trust in wikipedia is like 0 now. even the admin of the game came jsut becaus i made an honest try on making this article (not that you believe its the admin right? you think its me or someone els covering for me?)and it didnt quiet work at as i hoped it would. your probably thinkgin this post is way to long, im whining cause i cant delay the inevitable etc. i know i would do the same thing, hell i might even say shut up and get a life. but its me in the position of being the whiner. so im trying to make my stand, like the spartans did when the persians came and wanted to take over greece. they where first seen by there own poeple as the bad guys, but they tryed to save there own piece of greece. in a way so am i, if something ever did happen to the server or anything in that general direction, then ATW would stil remain here on wiki. and what if i told you there would be a second ATW? on a diferent server totaly new from the old. a brand new version, diferent rules, a new start, ages where there is a reset etc. would it be valid then? can i make this article then? this is no bluf, there wil be an ATW 2.0 on a diferent server, like SGW has with there ascended server. 2 games, 2 sources 2. would that be the sources thing you so dearly want? ifso ill just remake this ATW article in about a half year. im a patient man, so i dont care. ill keep trying, if you want something done right you have got to do it yourself right? and again about the recruiter stuf, look at the runescape article, isnt that a recruiting article? where did it get its sources from? because that 2 is only 1 game, not 2 not 3 nto 4 no only 1 game. but they must be paying wiki to stay right? thats why normal members can acces it? Equnai 20:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Have a look at the RuneScape references: The first three are an article in GameDaily, one in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and one from BBC News Online. That's what I'd call a perfect example of "multiple independent secondary sources". But I strongly doubt that anybody not related to ATW cared to write something about that game - and that's why it's considered non-notable. If you find such sources, go ahead and add them to the article - people will change their opinion if there's a reason. But currently I'm under the impression that you don't understand Wikipedia's relevant policies and guidelines; I suggest you read them up, especially WP:RS and WP:NN. Yours, Huon 20:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Percy Snoodle 10:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- 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.