Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FreeWorldGroup

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 per reasoning below and WP:CSD#G11. Guy (Help!) 07:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FreeWorldGroup[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent sources except for a blog interview, not notable. Conifer (talk) 05:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am a moderator on the website and am good friends with the owner. A lot of the information came directly from him. --05:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello. First, we discourage writing about subjects where you have a conflict of interest, like being friends with the owner. Second, we can't included information on Wikipedia based on original research, which includes personal knowledge that isn't published in a reliable source. Conifer (talk) 05:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, wouldn't sources on this count as reliable? They're from trusted, truthful websites (Alexa in particular only shows stats, LinkedIn is meant to give information on Valzano), and it's not like they're lies. As someone who's been active on the site for 5 years, maybe more, I can say that there are no inaccuracies within this. Do you want traffic details specifically for Bowman 2 (one game which boasts millions of plays?)? Something more concrete? Could you give us the very definition of what you want so that we may give you just that? I'm not sure what you consider "original research". You seem to bend that to "something I do not approve of" and I find it very strange.Foopzheart (talk) 05:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well sorry mate but anyone who isn't friends with him isn't going to have enough information to write a Wikipedia article that the mods here consider "valid". In fact, I'm not sure Chuck Norris doing a Jedi mind trick is.

Does a LinkedIn profile clearly of the owner aswell as reliable references written by the owner really not count? What do you want from me when that's all there is? When those are what he gave me as references when I asked for them? --Flobberz (talk) 05:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LinkedIn profiles are textbook WP:SELFPUB sources which cannot be used to establish notability or anything at all really except establishing uncontroversial facts. This is because they are not independent of the subject and exist to promote it, this is contrary to Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I browsed around some and could find nothing reliable that discusses this outfit. Note: of course LinkedIn is not reliable--at best it's a directory. The Alexa score isn't particularly high. The definition of what's reliable is in WP:RS, and what the writer needs to realize is that an encyclopedia is built on secondary sources, not primary sources. (This stuff is handled in Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources, and of course in most freshman comp classes.) Drmies (talk) 02:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article was posted just three days ago containing information relating to the site. Give us some time and more will be found. Unfortunately others have been removed, including a detailed list of website analytics and statistics from Mochiland, however I'll do my best to collect some more. Since this discussion was started (might I add just hours after I wrote the article, like seriously) at least 15 more references have been added, so it's obvious that I (and others) are trying.

You misunderstand that I don't realise what you want from me. I'm well aware that secondary sources are much preferred to primary ones, but frankly they're just the first I have. Just because they're not preferred doesn't mean they can't still be used amongst secondary ones, which I am attempting to find.

If I'm blunt, there's no reason to really care, to be honest. We have no reason to lie - in fact we have just about every reason to tell the truth. There's no need for it to be so bureaucratic. Flobberz (talk) 08:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has only been started - give the writer(s) more time to find sources of information. The current alexa rating is not relevant, as most site activity was in the past.--JSwho (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have taken action based on what you said. We've added almost 30 references including books, websites, blogs, journals, news articles, website statistics, reviews, videos and even research papers. We've put a lot of work into it and by now I'd say it's pretty reliable and professional. There are many worse on Wikipedia so if this gets deleted, so should many others. Thank you. --Flobberz (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not have significant (or any) coverage in reliable sources, so it does not come anywhere near passing WP:GNG. This is enough for deletion on its own, but the very likely UDPE makes me confident that this article doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Winner42, Conifer, Drmies, and comments made by Flobberz. "You have to be friends with the owner in order to write the article" is a pretty large red flag, because that's almost exactly the opposite of GNG. The sources do not meet RS, as all the mentions are trivial; for example, a "scholarly article" listed the website as a "software cited" for Flash, and L'espresso, supposedly published by Indiana University, is in Italian(?), the URL is from Google.hk(?), and after all that mentions the URL exactly once in the entire six issues in the "pack." That mention, by the way, is in conjunction with reviews about games hosted on the site. That is effectively what the majority of the sources show, which is "the name was mentioned, once"), or are cruft links to different parts of the website. Those are by definition trivial. No RS = no GNG = no article. MSJapan (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Purely promotional article about non-notable game developer, no evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:32, 17 August 2015 (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.