Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Force Order (second nomination)

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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United Force Order

[edit]

Was speedily deleted in Feb. 2006 after listing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Force Order. I'd like to have a full debate before considering this a G4 recreation, especially since the reason given for the speedy was that the group was 4 months old at the time. NawlinWiki 16:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, almost no clans can pass WP:V and I don't see any evidence that these guys are an exception. Recury 16:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:V, WP:OR. Yomanganitalk 16:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete yet another of the trillions of gaming clan vanity articles that get deleted constantly. No sources (are there ever?), no verifiability and no real claim to notability. Gets just 9 unique Google hits which if anything is even worse than average for gaming clans. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gaming clans are not notable, and this one seems less notable than most. Fan-1967 17:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:V, WP:OR. Open and shut case. ColourBurst 18:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost uncontestably strong keep: I had great fun writing this article and I have great fun on Wikipedia; deleting this entry would just make me cry. To be perfectly honest, I didn't understand the policies of verifiability or notability, however since reading them I now see that the article probably has little reason for being here and I apologise for wasting your respective times with it. I don't see, however, what harm it is doing; it isn't misleading or advertising, it's not a vanity page and I think it's just a rather nicely written article about a gaming clan. I would suggest that if almost no gaming clans are notable - and there are some notable clans out there - then perhaps the rule is flawed. LorD 20.18, 7 September 2006 (BST).
  • Comment: The purpose of Wikipedia being what, exactly? LorD 21.29ish 7 September 2006. (BST)
  • Comment: Yes, yes, I read all those and I didn't see how the article caused cracks in the foundation of the mighty Wikipedia. LorD 21.57 7 September 2006. (BST)
  • Comment: It isn't just this article. How many other gaming clans would like to create vanity articles here? If you allow them, why not every beer-league softball team (games are games, after all)? Fan-1967 22:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: And what would be wrong with having every beer-league softball team? LorD. 16.53, 8 September 2006.
We would just be taking people's word on it that any of what they wrote about their softball team is true. Instead we go by what has been published by reliable sources. If you had actually read any of the policy you would know all this and wouldn't be making arguments that everyone here has heard 100 times before. Recury 16:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because "every beer-league softball team" would not belong in a print encyclopedia. They are usually of extremely local interest only. Mapetite526 18:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a print encyclopaedia; surely that's the joy of Wikipedia, to supercede the print encyclopaedia? LorD 11.52, 9 September 2006.
  • Comment: I was only trying to be helpful by adding the clan to the thingummy; there's no need to set up a website for it since it already has one, n'est pas? I pay for that one already, I don't want to go paying for another one just to put a Wikipedia page in there. No, the point of putting it in was primarily fun and trying to be helpful; I apologise for having fun on this site where those luxuries are reserved for administrators. I should clearly know better. (Read with a smile for I'm not really trying to be antagonistic.) LorD 21.30ish 7 September 2006. (BST)
I suggested a free webhost. Also, Wikia is free if you want to have a site in a wiki format. Oh, and I'm not an admin. Bwithh 21:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: But my point was that I run the site already, there's little point in putting the page on a site when really it belongs here and it's only a collection of people who are stuffy about rules that Wikipedia so famously doesn't have who disagree. LorD 16.57, 8 September 2006.
Actually WP:NOT, WP:OR, WP:V are all official Wikipedia policies rather than "rules that Wikipedia so famously doesn't have" (is this the mainstream image that Wikipedia has? All the more reason for stringent observation of the policies). You might be thinking of official policy WP:IAR, but that's only applicable if ignoring rules improves or maintains the quality of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia's primary purpose is to be an encyclopedia with standards, which leads us back to WP:NOT. Bwithh 17:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was quoting the fifth pillar here. What is the point in saying that the site doesn't have rules but then enforcing them as policies. A rose by any other name... LorD 19.07, my birthday, 2006.
Comment You forgot to read the rest of the fifth pillar, ...besides the five general principles elucidated here. WP:NOT stems for the first pillar, and WP:NPOV is not negotiable, and that leads into WP:V. ColourBurst 18:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I forgot no such thing, I was highlighting how meaningless it is to say 'we have no rules... except for these ones, but otherwise we have no rules. No rules whatsoever... Except those ones over there.' Fifth pillar just there to make up numbers, is it? The mainstream image that Wikipedia has is that it's a vast source of mostly-inaccurate information on almost any subject. It's a given that there will be inaccuracies, people accept that about a print encyclopaedia, they are more likely to accept that about an online encyclopaedia, especially one whose sources are the online version of the tabloids. It's going to be inaccurate throughout its entire existence owing to its nature; on one side you could have an article on Pet Shop Boys telling of how they were slating Robbie Williams for not being able to concentrate while recording in the studio for his new album, Rudebox and you could cite Victoria Newton's column in The Sun as the source, but then you could cite the Pet Shop Boys site as the source vehemntly denying this claim. Where subjectivity comes in is if you're a fan of Victoria Newton or if you're homophobic and choose sleazy tabloid 'journalists' over PR-concerned artists. Someone will always believe one side and someone else will always believe the other, thus such a project like Wikipedia is fundamentally flawed in the aspect of accuracy. Where you could let people help out is to fill in the gaps of subject matter; "...information on almost any subject". It doesn't have to be almost. LorD 12.51, 9 September 2006.
  • Delete, sorry, there's just nothing at all notable about this group, and I'm still having trouble with any small/new gaming guild being notable. I suppose there may be exceptions, but I'm not seeing anything different here. Kuru talk 03:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: UFO is notable because it just is. Like Paris Hilton. Notability is subjective. I don't find maps interesting or notable, however you'd vehemently disagree. LorD 17.01, 8 September 2006 (and it's my birthday today).
      • Comment Notability is not subjective. There are objective ways to deduce notability. Namely, all the articles we linked to that you seem to not understand. UFO and Paris Hilton are not notable "because they are", they are notable because people who have no affiliation with the subject take the effort to write verifiable sources about the subject. If nobody wrote a verifiable source on Paris Hilton or UFO, they'd be similarly rejected. So I have a question: do you currently believe that your site does not pass WP:V? ColourBurst 17:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: My site meaning the UFO clan site]? LorD 19.09, 8 September 2006.
          • Comment yes. ColourBurst 18:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment: Deduction is a subjective art and so there can be no subjective way of deducing anything, much less something as subjective as notability. Regardless, the UFO site is compiled by its members and the clan's site has been linked to a number of times (with authority) by a number of other gaming clans who note it for its wealth of resources and tutorials; I'm still unclear as to whether those sources make it verifiable. LorD 11.56, 9 September 2006.
  • Delete per Bwithh and ColourBurst. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again. --Peta 05:39, 12 September 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/United_Force_Order_(second_nomination)&oldid=1088206786"