Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fires Of Heaven

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 of the debate was delete. sow plz?  RasputinAXP  c 03:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fires Of Heaven

[edit]

Yet Another online gaming guild. More gamecruft for the bit bucket. Calton | Talk 05:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Actually, no, it isn't. It's a poorly-written entry, riddled with spelling and grammar errors, beyond which it fails to make a case for notability. There are quite literally thousands of such groups across the whole spectrum of MMORPGs. RGTraynor 13:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Actually, I've been playing them for fifteen years now, probably a great deal longer than any meatpuppet who jumped on the WoW bandwagon a year or two ago. What part of "there are thousands of such groups" do you find inaccurate? RGTraynor 15:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Fires of Heaven has consistently pioneered the end-game content and aided in development of the two largest MMO's to date: Everquest and World of Warcraft. They are legends among the MMO community because of their prowess, determination, and ability to consistently progress months ahead of everyone else. Just because a few of you think "It's just a video game thing", doesn't mean that they have not had an enormous impact on millions of gamers through their efforts. They are comparable to an MMO Louis & Clark. This is why they are not like "Thousands of other groups", and deserve a place on Wiki.SuperJoe 22:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Terrific; feel free to prove it. Go over the criteria on WP:WEB, let us know which of them your site fulfills, and source it for us. I'm sure some votes will change if you provide proof of the major awards your site has won or the independent media coverage it has had. RGTraynor 01:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think you're missing the point. The article isn't about a website, it's about a guild that has had significant accomplishments and ties to the MMO industry. It happens to mention a website, but if every article that mentioned a website had to justify it's existence based on WP:WEB criteria then you'd have to delete a lot of wikipedia content. Be fair in your justification. If you honestly feel it should be removed (which is where I would disagree with you) then have it deleted for valid reasons, not for a vague demand to meet WP:WEB criteria. 63.166.226.89 21:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can assure you I do not have a seperate agenda. My reasoning is that the group is Non notable and that we should follow the precedent for such articles Ydam 17:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteper Isotope23; fan/gamecruft. -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 00:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per Isotope23 and because such guilds are common and would be impossible to justify relative significance to each other. Deciding which guild in which game is 'worthy' of mention is a task for a private MMORG wiki, not Wikipedia. -Markeer 14:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete - User:Metranon The guild webpage is not significant because of it's in-game accomplishments, those only helped to establish the reputation that has made their forums a popular destination for non-guild members, and, more importantly, "celebrity" level developers from within the Multiplayer gaming industry. Dismissing this website because it is just another MMORPG guild site would be much like dismissing the significance of Studio 54 because it was just another Disco club-- the community is important not because of the setting but because of who congregates there with regularity, including notables such as John Smedley and Brad McQuaid. MMORPG's are very much mainstream nowadays, with millions of gamers enjoying them in North America alone, and those millions may have an interest in reading an unbiased account of what happened regarding their hobby in the past. Anyone who conducts even the most basic study of that history will discover that the community at the Fires of Heaven forums has played a important role in determining its' course.207.81.74.251 05:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting comparison. Studio 54 was frequented by quite literally dozens upon dozens of major internationally known celebrities. By contrast, the lead Google hit for John Smedley is for an eponymous line of clothing, and no doubt many thousands of players even of the games they created neither know nor care who these gentlemen are; I certainly know nothing beyond the names of the creators of the games I've played. In any event even the most famous of them have zero name recognition beyond hardcore MMORPG fandom. RGTraynor 06:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Isotope23. I play quite a few MMORPG's, and have been in a large number of guilds, my AC guild was over 1000 people and was one of the largest on our server, but would never consider thinking it was encyclopedia worthy.Wolfsbane Kane 11:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, comparing your 1000 person AC guild to FoH is pointless because As I've stated, the importance of this guild doesn't rest with its' number of members or with it's ingame accomplishments but with what it has accomplished outside the game, with ultimatums to gaming developers as well as the community of well known gaming industry figures and contributors it has engendered. Being big on your gaming server is no big deal but when your site is uploading a few terabytes of data a month in traffic to a diverse array of gamers, that is something worth noting.207.81.74.251 19:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)User:Metranon[reply]
  • Do Not Delete This article needs clean up/editing, not delete. The above commentators calling for delete would be correct, if this were merely about a gaming guild's website. However, fohguild.org's MMORPG discussion forum is of note and separate of an average MMORPG clan/guild's site. In fact the actual guild forums section is private and not visible to non guild members. Although one person may not know who John Smedley president of Sony Online Entertaiment is, wikipedia does (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Smedley_%28developer%29) as does the 2nd and 3rd entries of google, or of Brad McQuaid president of Sigil Games (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_McQuaid). Often game developers, producers and staff for various games come to fohguild.org to discuss their games, reputations and past decisions, for good or ill with the public. Another frequent poster of note is Gallenite (Scott Hartsman, senior producer of Everquest 2). Here are the links to their posts: John Smedley, Brad McQuaid, Scott Hartsman. As you can see by the number of posts and the interactive discussion, sometimes these posts are the sole place for this information and sometimes these developers/producers post here more frequently than their own official sites. If you are looking for external media sites citing fohguild.org, here is a CBS article linking to an FoH discussion with John Smedley. The majority of these dicussions are taking place with people who are not members of Fires of Heaven, nor have ever been members of the guild whether that was in Ultima Online, Everquest 1, World of Warcraft or Everquest II. They also are not seeking membership to the organization as many have their own blogs, fansites or are unnamed/anonymous developers of games. Fohguild.org is also linked to IRC discussion channels, uberguilds.org free guild tracking, voicechat services, and host to game servers for MUDs and other games. The amount of traffic the site receives alone due to this developer discussion would make it of note, since people go there to get insider information. Traffic information: http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&compare_sites=&y=r&q=&size=medium&range=&url=www.fohguild.org. --Anaxamandra 19:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This still doesn't meet policy of WP:WEB. The CBS article doesn't even mention the website or the guild name, just a link to the conversation on the forum. One article is not enough, though, since there has to be mention in multiple non-trivial published works. Also your admission to the "fact the actual guild forums section is private and not visible to non guild members" makes this even more of a canidate for deletion, since majority of readers of this Wikipedia article can not then access all aspects of the forums without being a part of the guild. --MOE.RON talk | done | doing 20:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry for the confusion, the point about the private forums portion is that the real guild website is not available to the public, as such fohguild.org isn't really a guild website. My point was calling it a guild website isn't really accurate. The public section(s) which we are discussing is completely public. Maybe some other readers can pull up more published works. I just pulled up an example I knew of out of my reading, since you asked for it. --Anaxamandra 20:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Demanding the removal based on multiple non-trivial published works is demonstrating a lack of understanding of what the article is really about. The article needs some work, but the kernel is there. Fires of Heaven has had a significant impact on millions of MMO gamers, which is something no other "guild" can claim. Just because it references a website doesn't mean it should fall into a category of content that needs to fulfill the multiple non-trivial published works criteria. Please start arguing based on the article's content not based on the fact that it contains a link to a website (otherwise you'd have to start deleting a LOT of wikipedia content). 63.166.226.89 21:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Many outfits assert notability in one fashion or another with varying degree of extravagant claims. Several times we've asked for actual, verifiable sources to back them up. We've yet to see anything beyond unsourced allegations of "Millions of gamers!" or that game designers frequent the website. It's understandable if you're unfamiliar with the way things work here, but the burden of evidentiary proof is not on those who seek the deletion of an unsourced article, rather on those who wish to retain it. RGTraynor 02:17, 8 June 2006 (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/Fires_Of_Heaven&oldid=1144671212"