Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Throne

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 No consensus. After discounting all the new users and sockpuppets, I found approximately 50-50 consensus to delete the article (I won't go into exact numbers), which is insufficient for deletion. Relisting this AfD won't work, because of the sheer number of !votes made by all the new users and sockpuppets, so any further AfD (to gauge a more accurate consensus) would have to start from scratch. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Throne[edit]

Still in beta testing. No claims of notability. No sign of third-party references. (Fairly well-written, though.) —Wrathchild (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: {{notability}} removed from the article on August 18 without comment. —Wrathchild (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 20:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If pages for other online games (runescape, WOW, etc) are on Wikipedia I see no reason why this page should be deleted. It may need to be edited some, but not deleted.

Jowan2005

    • Do you really need to have it explained to you why Dark Throne is not in the same league as Runescape?? wikipediatrix 20:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't really think that has anything to do with the page being deleted. It is still a very large game and if other online games are included then there is no reason for Dark Throne to be removed. It would be one thing if the Dark Throne page was just advertising the game, but it isn't, it explains the game and how it works.
      • Look at all the games of this type on Wikipedia. Not all of them are as big as runescape or Dark Throne, yet they're still on Wikipedia. If you remove Dark Throne all of them should be removed too. (or at least games around the same size as Dark Throne if you're using the size of the game as your reason for the page getting deleted) List of MMORPGs --Jowan2005
        • Dude. Dark Throne is still in beta testing. Game over. (Tell me some of the other articles you're talking about, because they probably do indeed need to be deleted also.) wikipediatrix 20:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Is there some rule that says no beta-tested games can be on Wikipedia? Like I said before, look at List of MMORPGs I'm sure you will find a lot of things you would want to delete (although I don't think they should be deleted)--Jowan2005
            • I'm sure there are, but this is a discussion about this one. The others will be found and handled in due course. —Wrathchild (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh OK, and while you're at it might as well get rid of all other pages on betas since that is your main reason for wanting to delete the Dark Throne page. Lets just get rid of Gmail, Writley, Windows Vista, anything talking about IE7, etc... --Jowan2005
                • I agree. If the only logical reason you can come up with is that it is in Beta testing, then there are probably 1000 articles that should be deleted. Dark Throne is a very popular MMORPG. And if it is proof you need that there are 300,000+ players, then i submit this pice as evidence. The below information is on the lowest ranking account in the game: "sirmendez is a level 1 Human Assassin Overall Rank: 342,689." (i did delete the extra space) This proves thus that are are over 342,000 players in this game, way more than a lot of text-based MMORPG's, and as mentioned above, way more than many of those that are directly competing with Dark Throne, for players, ads, and more. Also, one question comes to mind reading these arguements. If the best two reasons that you can come up with are that the game is in Beta testing, and that the game when Googled can only come up with a handful of sites, then why do you even argue? — Possible single purpose account: Phoenix2009 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
Because it fails WP:WEB, something you've chosen to ignore. The article (in terms of describing the game not the band) has existed for 18 months yet not a shred of notability has been established. The amount of subscribers is completely irrelevant, even more so as Dark Throne is free to play - if it didn't have a lot of subscribers it would have been AFD'd on sight long ago. A lot of the beta products mentioned above are some of the most widely reported on software packages in the world, which is why they're different. Being in beta stage is not the issue, being in beta stage whilst using Wikipedia as an advertising medium is. I would be delighted to change my vote if someone somewhere could come up with some verified information on this game, but so far there's been nothing but fluff about Dark Throne somehow being able to dodge WP's rules 'just cos', which is no reason for keeping the article. QuagmireDog 23:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Outwar , Kings of Chaos , and Earth 2025 are all similar games to Dark Throne, except for the fact that Dark Throne has a larger userbase than all of them combined. Unless planning to delete the other three, that are Dark Throne competitors, do not delete this entry. Wikipedia is not supposed to be biased. Don't compare it to other games like WoW or Runescape. Compare it against games and listings for similar games on wikipedia. All three games above are listed with no notice of deletion. Just because the "Beta" tag is on Dark Throne, doesn't mean its less finished or important than the others. Only asking for fair treatment here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.251.11 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 68.185.251.11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
    • Earth 2025 has been awarded a Webby award, meaning it's established notability. Kings of Chaos is tagged as not citing its references, it may be sat on at a later date. Outwar doesn't appear to establish notability and could also find itself in trouble. Thanks for the heads-up. QuagmireDog 08:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the user base is so large, why isn't that information in the article? Can it be verified? Where are the cites to write-ups about the game from other sources? Outwar and Kings of Chaos at least have been running for years. To me, however, they're much more notorious for the amount of spam their users generate in looking for inbound links. Remember: Wikipedia is not a primary source. This game has to establish notability in the world to get an article here. I wish you luck with that. If it happens, we will gladly have an article about it. —Wrathchild (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why should Beta be a notation of Wikipedia worthiness? There are many products and websites that are in Beta but don't publically announce it. This seems like a strong handed draconian judgement coming down on site that deserves a place on Wikipedia just as much as the next guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.40.193 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, no notability established, game still in beta stage yet no sign of any non-trivial coverage. Google search for "Dark Throne" and Lazarus produces nothing but the main site, some links from free online game sites (you know, the advert funnels) and of course the Wikipedia entry. I can understand fans of the game wanting this article here, but until some notability is established it is just advertising. Regardless, hope Lazarus make a go of it. QuagmireDog 08:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in addition to above vote, fails WP:WEB. Alexa rank of 4,353 (very good), but WP appears as one of the first links and after trawling through several pages I could only find links from blogs, forums, message-boards etc. Dark Throne players have waged a very successful advertising campaign for this game, something Lazarus is probably grateful for, but that's all the WP article seems to be. I will keep trying to find some reviews via the Alexa 'linked-from' list but if there is any non-trivial coverage it should have been linked before now. QuagmireDog 00:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closing admin This: [1] has come to light. Now in the case of a lot of these webgames etc. we aren't talking about the designer/publisher providing the information - it's the game's fans. The result however is fairly similar - articles being used as adverts, a lot of noise and bluster without any hint of WP's policies and guidelines being satisfied etc. Please look at the nature of DT (it's a game laid atop a system of using the gamers as advertisers to draw in traffic) when considering the Alexa rank and then take a look at the total lack of citations in both the article and this AFD. I feel very strongly that the spirit of WP has had no look-in on this article and that it is advertising for a game which is, at its roots, advertising. QuagmireDog 17:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Searched first 100 of 405 sites linking-in to darkthrone.com, except for 3 different-language versions of WP I found nothing except a handful of link-farms (Google has it listed for instance) and a mass of messageboard/blog pages. QuagmireDog 00:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I used wholinkstome.com and without any effort I found Dark Throne on a list of top online games, so you must not be doing a good job at your little search. Anyway, it does not matter. The game has had millions of players and belongs on Wikipedia for reasons stated on other parts of this page. --Jowan2005
Provide the link to this site then so it can be shown that it is considered non-trivial. My 'little search' was an attempt to find some evidence of notability, yet instead of providing the link and perhaps helping to keep the article you've instead come back with a snotty remark and zero evidence. QuagmireDog 01:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other assertions on this page do not demonstrate this article meets WP:WEB, as of yet not a single argument has provided any evidence of this. As soon as they do I'll change my vote (as indicated before) and other viewers will doubtless vote keep. So, the task in hand.. QuagmireDog 01:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's http://mmreviews.com/ If you want to search for more sites try using http://wholinkstome.com/?url=darkthrone.com--Jowan2005
Thanks. I had a look on that site but couldn't find a direct reference to the game (I searched Dark Throne in the box but it didn't come back with a Dark Throne piece, so perhaps the link-to was from an article within the website posted by a user? I'm not sure even if it did that mmreviews.com would be considered non-trivial. Ideally a review from a good MMOG site would be a good start. I'll have another go with wholinkstome at some point to see if I can find one. In the meantime, other Wikipedians can add to this debate (and might be able to shed some light/point to some potential sources). QuagmireDog 02:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agreed about keeping this page. As already mentioned, the game has over 300,000 members actively playing, and over a million users who have played at some point before. It IS popular, and just because it's in a testing stage does not qualify the article for deletion. The article is very-well written, and the full, nontesting version of the game comes out "soon". Would we just REDO the page then? Honestly, I see no reason to delete this. --NecroWraith 21:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Darkthrone is an amazing game so keep this page !! Jonsi88 01:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Jonsi88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Keep -- Why should it not be kept because it is in its Beta stage? Should the article on Cold Fusion not be kept because it does not exist yet? Should the article of Rush Hour 3 not be kept because it isn't made yet? The Big Bang is only a theory, I guess it should be gone too, because it's all 'fluff' and has no actual evidence.

Ha. CrazyCasey 01:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Darkthrone has an established and large userbase. A large reason that it lacks coverage or reviews by third-party sites is that there are very few sites that cover browser-based MMOG's.--kenobi.zero 11:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Then if it's not getting a mention even on those, then how is it notable? —Wrathchild (talk) 12:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What are you talking about, it is! There are over 2000 links to it that I found using MSN (use wholinkstome.com if you really want to see). Right on the first page there were links from those types of sites. --Jowan2005
        • "there are very few sites that cover browser-based MMOG's". Okay. Where is the coverage of the game on those sites? I don't expect it to be covered by the New York Times or USA Today, but a notable site in that niche writing about the game would indicate notability. That's what I'm talking about. —Wrathchild (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it on a cheesy gamer fansite, and not hosted by the University itself? wikipediatrix 18:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There could be many reasons for them not hosting it anymore. Maybe they don't have a lot of room for hosting? Maybe they take down papers after a set amount of time? It does not matter where it's hosted. The source is still the same. (the University is still the source)--Jowan2005
I'm sorry, but it does indeed matter where it is hosted. Please study WP:V and WP:RS. wikipediatrix 19:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then I will just host it on my college's server and everything will be fine. --Jowan2005
  • Comment I'm just not happy with the general attitude of some of these replies. "Cheesy gamer fansite" Looking at the article itself, you can see it is a well thought out, well written case study on Dark Throne and relationships in an Online society. The author could have written about any online, but picked Dark Throne. You guys asked for notability and here it is. As for questioning the link, it was primarily published and read offline. Just because its primary audience viewed it offline doesn't make it any less note worthy. Not all of the entries on wikipedia can only be verified online. -- Jason68.185.251.11 03:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A fan site for a gamer's clan is not a valid source for Wikipedia, as per WP:V and WP:RS. wikipediatrix 19:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not represent a good article, at all. Much information on the game is missing (such as the actual meaning of the powered-up versions of soldiers, how many citizens are created through houses etc.), yet there's plenty of needless details about the website and the IRC channel, a plug about charitable donations without any evidence at all etc. etc. That document has not been shown to be 'published' by the University, just that the writer is a student or affiliate of that university. That the writer of the case study chose Dark Throne most likely because they are a Dark Throne player - this is not some stamp of notability but a 'cushy number', nice for them to be able to write about one of their hobbies, no use as notability. QuagmireDog 21:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So then you agree with me when I said 'It may need to be edited some, but not deleted.' in my first comment. --Jowan2005
Quite the opposite, the reasons for this AFD are stated by the contributor who listed, my reasons for supporting the deletion have already been stated (repeatedly). Clean-up is a seperate issue. If the article is kept, then clean-up can and will be happening anyway - I've already started. That doesn't mean that the article passes WP:WEB, that anything resembling notability is presented in the article or has been presented here on the AFD or that I've changed my vote. The offer has always been there that I'd back keeping the article, but neither you or I have managed to find anything that meets the criteria. QuagmireDog 06:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are not making sense. What 'vote' are you talking about? "this is not a vote". Dark Throne has been played by millions of people, ran a charity to help sick kids, had an article written about it by a college, is bigger than most other games of its type on Wikipedia, and you think it should be deleted? I don't understand what more you need. You ask for something, we show it to you, you say it's not good enough. If the Dark Throne pages is deleted then there are hundreds (if not thousands) of other pages that would need to be deleted as well. The only thing that needs to happen is the page be changed a little to include information about its size, the charity, and more explaining about the game with less out-of-game information (IRC channel info and some other things) --Jowan2005
Though this isn't a vote, in terms of counting hands, my own judgement means that I 'vote' for the topic to be deleted. WP:WEB, WP:V, there in black and white, if you cannot or will not attempt to work through this by addressing the problem then I cannot do anything more. QuagmireDog 09:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • sigh*. Reading again I can see why you think I'm being needlessly obstinate, let's go through this again.. That document has not been published by a university, it was found on a forum site. It was written by a student, an undergraduate. It's research. It's research that has not been given a critical review by a university or journal or anything else, it is original research, IE speculation. It is not profesionally published, it is trivial and offers a POV about the subject that hasn't been stamped by what would be considered an objective organization. Adding content from that, no matter how much time the writer put into creating it, is no different than writing "according to Stanley, my elderly neighbour...". It isn't usable, it's no good, it's not what we've been looking for, it isn't even directly about the subject, it uses DT as a case study to evaluate something else. This isn't about "your efforts aren't good enough!", this is about all the pages given thus far not being up to the standards laid down in the guidelines and policies, which are quoted about this discussion like confetti. I feel more than a natch deflated that after all this discussion you seem to feel that I'm just trying to get in the way for the hell of it. All I have ever been interested in is that DT's article can stand up to the same scrutiny that every article on the WP has to or will have to in the fullness of time - 18 months is plenty long enough to find something. QuagmireDog 14:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thats not what I'm saying. I am saying that if this article was submitted to, used by, read by, and published offline by the University, that it has established notability. You could verify it with them if you really wanted to. Additionally is there anything we can get Lazarus Software to verify, so this page can be kept? -- Jason68.185.251.11 03:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why all the circumspection? "The University" Can you not name the institution? More importantly, why aren't these claims of notability in the article? —Wrathchild (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm really trying to be reasonable and calm here, but you are sending me very unprofessional replies. The institution is listed right on the document, and I could easily type Southeastern Oklahoma State University. I didn't think the university I was referring to was in question. Anyone reading it knows that I was referring to the University listed on the article, so please do not be condescending. I am not giving you a hard time, and I am not causing problems. I am following your steps to try to keep this article up. I asked another question which was still not answered: "Additionally is there anything we can get Lazarus Software to verify, so this page can be kept?" I will also be more than happy to put up a section in regards to this article and case study on the Dark Throne article in the next 24 hrs. -- Jason68.185.251.11 03:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't download Word documents from unknown sources. —Wrathchild (talk) 04:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Kind of puts a bind on all of this discussion, doesn't it? Still did't answer question I asked twice before, so we can try to get Lazarus Software to help. Is there anything that they can do or verify so this page can be kept? -- Jason 68.185.251.11 04:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the document, it hasn't been shown that it is published in a journal etc. and thus regarded as something which can be regarded as non-trivial. It is a case-study, part of a student's workload, rather than something that has been held up to scrutiny in terms of being published. As it stands it is WP:OR which is completely unusable. To put it another way, if I lifted parts of that document and inserted them into the article, particularly about the DT community's belief and acceptance that widespread cheating happens, I would be challenged. Contributors to that article would ask exactly where the information came from and (rightly) rip it to bits and label it as an attempt, by me, to attack Lazarus and to show DT in a dim light. Due to Lazarus trying to pull in the punters with promises of 'prizes', such accusations (if shown to be substantiated) could be extremely damaging. Now whilst it is quite fair that such things shouldn't be used to push an agenda, by the same token they are not usable to establish notability.
With Lazarus providing info, there lies the rub. We're a tertiary source, taking our information from secondary sources. General information about the game could (and IMO should) be able to come from the primary source, but the whole point of establishing notability is that 'non-trivial' sources have provided information/opinion about the subject from which we can make an article. I have been looking around some more, trying to find a site which says something, anything about the game rather than just providing a link. Up till now, all MMOG sites I've found via Alexa or the site provided by Jowan have been nothing more than message board posts pointing to the site (of no encyclopedic content whatsoever) or simple links from MMOG funnel-sites, perhaps with a few lines of text giving viewers an idea of what DT actually is (again, non-notable source which doesn't even offer any context regarding the game's qualities or attempt to offer anything other than another gateway for their users). So far I found one site which actually talked about the game here: [2] Notice the asterisk at the bottom of the page - the first glimmer of hope I get and it's taking info from WP -.- .
I haven't stopped looking for info on this game yet and I'm just as happy to argue for the article being kept if some decent info can be found, but I must admit I'm struggling to find any mention of DT at all on many MMOG funnel-sites, which is even more surprising considering DT's high Alexa rank. I'm left with the distinct impression that Lazarus have done extremely well out of WP, but I'm curious as to why it's taken over a year and a half for this article to even come under the microscope. This issue with MMOGs/Flashgames etc. and notability should be hammered out somewhere, it's a hell of a lot larger than we can discuss here. Oh, dang nearly forgot, does anyone have a link to info about the charity donations Lazarus drummed up/donated? I don't think there was one but such info deserves to be on their article. QuagmireDog 07:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Taken from the source of the paper on DT:

"We are a website community devoted to literature, Role-playing, and general chat amongst a lively community of friendly people. All are welcome at Amber: writers, gamers, quiz freaks and spammers alike. We also play host to Heaven's Gates : Darkthrone's first clan, who have their own section of the forums."

It's a forum site. There is no evidence that this piece has been published by the university, this site hosts a DT clan. Just because it exists and has been submitted as part of a course doesn't mean that it's anything other than WP:OR.

Even after looking myself and everyone's had time to do the same, not a single piece of anything even remotely connected to establishing notability has surface, despite it repeatedly being said that there has.

Every time I try to look something up on Google I get WP on top of the results. This article claims that Lazarus has done these charity runs - where is the evidence? I'm not seeing any (and I've tried). Where is Lazarus' homepage? There's none listed, again I've looked for it, nothing there. There are plenty of things need verifying, yet precious little to verify them with. It was given a 'please add citations' tag nearly over two months ago, there's a message on the talk page asking for some cites dated the 1st of August. If those actually tending the article can't find anything it's hardly surprising that nothing's come up during the AFD.

The article reads like an advert, even giving details of the IRC, how to log in etc., the web address stuck in amongst the text at the top, plug for Lazarus' charity work in the DT article instead of in the Lazarus article (not that there's any evidence of Lazarus existing beyond DT). There is something VERY wrong with the DT article and the Lazarus article accompanying it, I'm no longer giving it the benefit of the doubt. QuagmireDog 17:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe [3] is the charity mentioned, also uses the term 'run', the NY Children's Hospital is listed there and it is focussed on gamers and game companies helping kids with donations - I like it. Whilst there is no mention of Lazarus on there, it fits the bill (though some confirmation of this fact sure as heck wouldn't hurt). With all due respect to the article's editors, if this is the right charity, why on earth has it taken me to find it, after this information was added to the article on 19 October 2005? After issues with cites were brought up 2 months ago? Come on guys, these things need backing-up with evidence and unsubstantiated claims shouldn't be lying around for months on end. QuagmireDog 18:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That charity has a WP article here, the above link to the website includes a raft of press coverage about the charity, there -might- even be a reference to Lazarus there somewhere. QuagmireDog 07:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing that I can see. It's a pity that the contributor who inserted the text didn't add the name of the charity concerned, nobody's confirmed that this is the right charity (though it appears extremely unlikely that it could be another). QuagmireDog 15:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are pleased to announce that, once again, we will be holding a charity drive to support Children's Hospital. Last year we thought it would be a great idea to hold a charity drive and raise money to help those who are sick and less fortunate over the holiday season. Players managed to raise over $10,000.00 for Children's Hospital in New York.

Like last year, players will have the ability to donate via paypal or the mail, and everyone who donates will receive one of three new charity medals that will appear on your profile page. Players will also have the ability to win a variety of prizes which will range from game testing, to console games, dvd's, and more.

To help us announce this year's charity drive, we got Cash Cunningham, the Board Chairman of Children's Hospital to thank players who donated last year and tell you a little about this year's charity drive: 

   Dear “Dark Throne Players”:

   On behalf of the Women & Children’s Hospital of Buffalo, please accept our heartfelt thanks to all of you who went online and made a donation in last year’s charity drive to benefit the hospital. As a group you successful raised $10,363; a portion of which we gave to the Child Life Department to use for the purchase of toys for patients spending their holiday in the hospital. The remainder of your donation went to the help the Hematology/Oncology Unit; a unit which cares for 98% of the patients under the age of four diagnosed with some form of cancer or blood disorder.

   We are most appreciative of your efforts on behalf of the young patients we serve and would like to thank you in advance for participation in this year’s charity drive. Please know that by supporting Lazarus Software in their benefit for the hospital you are enabling our doctors, nurses and health care professionals to provide the very best care for the more than 45,000 patients who are treated here each year.

   On behalf of the staff at the Women & Children’s Hospital of Buffalo Foundation and our Board of Directors a most heartfelt thank you.

   Very truly yours,

   Cash Cunningham
   Board Chairman
   Women & Children’s Hospital of Buffalo Foundation


For more information about this Hospital and the foundation, please visit http://foundation.wchob.org and look for our official Charity Drive page to go up on Dark Throne very soon. On this page we will be including all of the important information such as mailing addresses, contact information for the hospital, and specifics about how to donate online.


anymore credibility needed to that fact? if so, i am sure a little digging in the archives can bring up some more info. I belive that in the 2005 Charity Drive, a little over $12,500 was raised, but don't hold me to that amount. Phoenix2009 01:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Phoenix200 DT Supporter[reply]

It's still sourced from DT as opposed to outside, but thankyou for providing the link - should the article be kept then it will make a great starting point to verifying the info. It illustrates why those adding this kind of information should provide the cites themselves, rather than giving everyone else legwork. QuagmireDog 10:25, 3 October 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/Dark_Throne&oldid=1069491943"