Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rise of Tyrants (2nd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the discussion that resulted in the nominated article being deleted in 2007, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rise of Tyrants (3rd nomination).
- 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 NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 08:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I created this article as a relative newbie. The site seems non-notable, with, at the very most, 3,000 members (approximately 900 active) Alexa rank under 500k, and while it has 24,400 Google hits, I'm willing to bet that the results are horribly skewed, given the nature of a game where it is encouraged to get others to click a link for you. Ral315 WS 01:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- weak delete as non-notable, though this is a decent article. The major downside in keeping it would be encouraging relatives... — brighterorange (talk) 04:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep User stats per the home page, 8,711 players registered; 949 players active now. Not exactly World of Warcraft, but covering obscure topics that no one else can is part of why Wikipedia is better than other encyclopedias. Listed at several sites as a "Top 100 free MMORPG", from what I've seen, usually between #30 and #50. Unfocused 17:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - notability is not a deletion criteria. Trollderella 18:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. It's a CSD criteria in black and white (A7), and, in practice, it's the reason Wikipedia doesn't have articles about every failed political candidate, every road intersection, every day, every toy, every model of computer, every issue of long-running magazines, etc. There are lots of verifiable, factual things that just aren't encyclopedic material. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense, indeed. CSD (A7) states "An article about a real person that does not..." This is not a real person; CSD (A7) does not apply. I participated in the debate to expand CSD, and A7 was deliberately limited to real persons only. If you're going to cite deletion policy, please take care to cite it properly, especially considering that you are an admin and are expected to apply it properly as well. Unfocused 06:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I omitted "in" accidentally; my point was not that CSD A7 applies to this example, but that the logic behind CSD A7 reflects general consensus for (non-speedy) deletion, and that that logic applies in a (again, non-speedy) way to the vast majority of topics. (I suppose I deserve the chiding, for the original wording, but I'm mostly a tag-and-bag kind of RC patroller unless it's obvious gibberish.) Non-notable websites are deleted for the same reason (if not by the same method) that non-notable people are; there are many, many websites, most of which have no impact beyond the creator and a handful of people mostly known to the creator. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to state that "non-notable" has consensus in general practice for things other than real people, and that you agree, please do so. It's a valid and common opinion. Connecting it to an official policy that doesn't apply, especially where such consensus for such connection was deliberately rejected, is something that I hope you will not continue to do. Unfocused 16:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I omitted "in" accidentally; my point was not that CSD A7 applies to this example, but that the logic behind CSD A7 reflects general consensus for (non-speedy) deletion, and that that logic applies in a (again, non-speedy) way to the vast majority of topics. (I suppose I deserve the chiding, for the original wording, but I'm mostly a tag-and-bag kind of RC patroller unless it's obvious gibberish.) Non-notable websites are deleted for the same reason (if not by the same method) that non-notable people are; there are many, many websites, most of which have no impact beyond the creator and a handful of people mostly known to the creator. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense, indeed. CSD (A7) states "An article about a real person that does not..." This is not a real person; CSD (A7) does not apply. I participated in the debate to expand CSD, and A7 was deliberately limited to real persons only. If you're going to cite deletion policy, please take care to cite it properly, especially considering that you are an admin and are expected to apply it properly as well. Unfocused 06:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. It's a CSD criteria in black and white (A7), and, in practice, it's the reason Wikipedia doesn't have articles about every failed political candidate, every road intersection, every day, every toy, every model of computer, every issue of long-running magazines, etc. There are lots of verifiable, factual things that just aren't encyclopedic material. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Per Trollderella's assertion that notability is not grounds for deletion, it is just not worth taking up the argument. Trollderella, for whatever reason, seems sincerely to believe that as long as something is factual and verifiable, it should not be deleted. Attempts to argue with her/him are futile. Dottore So 09:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Official policy, as opposed to guidelines and common practice, supports Trollderella's assertion in all cases except regarding real persons. Whether right or wrong, "non-notable" simply is not a deletion criteria supported by official policy. Surely we shouldn't criticize someone for supporting the official policy of Wikipedia, even if we don't agree. Further, we shouldn't discount the opinion of someone who is in line with the letter of official policy just because they don't want to discuss the validity of that policy in every AfD. Unfocused 16:08, 18 October 2005 (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.