Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle Magica
- 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 by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy Talk 17:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Battle Magica[edit]
Lengthy advertisement for a non-notable website (alexa rank 1,648,282). Twice prodded for that reason, twice contested. Sandstein 21:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Battle Magica may not be "notable" to you but at one time it was quite popular and beloved by many. I played it when I was a kid and I wanted to make a Wiki about it. Is that so wrong? It isn't an advertisement. It is a history and an overview. If it is favorable, it is because I enjoyed playing it so much as a kid.
Also it should be noted that I spent a lot of time researching things before making the entry. I think you people need to chill out, it isn't like I was posting referral links or anything like that. Wikipedia should contain knowledge about this game and I filled that need.
Also, the relevance of using a current Alexa rank is laughable considering the website has been featured in the media and at one time had a much better ranking.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.89.7.46 (talk • contribs)
- Do you have a citation for where it was featured in the media? Or was it just some blog or another website? I disagree with the anon's claim that the ranking is irrelevant, and it is currently at 1,648,282. I can find nothing relating to this game that would help it meet WP:WEB so delete. --Hetar 22:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article has no evidence of notability cited, not even claimed. Can the anonymous editor show where BM "has been featured in the media"? Barno 22:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. BM isn't notable. --Please, do 00:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This one was just a blurb: http://springfield.news-leader.com/columnists/asby/0308-Netgamesou-33378.html
There was also a front page, center section, and back section article by Michael Brothers also of the News Leader:
As well as a feature in a magazine that I can't seem to locate at the moment. (It was back in 2001. Memory is fuzzy, I will try to contact the people involved with the game now and see if they know.)
I am sorry, I am new to Wikipedia but this game was huge in my area of the country and I thought it was notable. I just wanted to provide people a brief summary and history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrozenNightshade (talk • contribs)
- No offense taken, certainly. However, we must follow policy in determining if something is notable enough for inclusion. The policy WP:WEB says:
- "The content itself has been the subject of multiple [my emphasis, Sandstein] non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion excludes: ... Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report ... a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site..."
- It appears that the article you cited, while a start, isn't yet sufficient to establish notability under WP:WEB. It's only one, and it might well qualify as "trivial". I think we need some more sources, sorry. Sandstein 05:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom (and very poor Alexa rank in particular) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:WEB and WP:NOT Computerjoe's talk 17:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Further, author requests it as well, and I think that while that's not determinative, that should be taken into consideration. --Nlu (talk) 17:28, 8 April 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.