Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MirageOfPenguins

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. Cirt (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MirageOfPenguins[edit]

Prod was removed by article creator. This is an article about a hacking team who find cheats for online computer games. No notability at all. Fences&Windows 02:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional nomination of Mirage of Penguins, the redirect. Fences&Windows 21:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. They create the cheats, and run their business model around keeping them up-to-date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.178.83 (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference between "finding" cheats and "creating" them seems pretty subtle to me. Hairhorn (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're a registered business under PayPal's license system, and being one of the most successful cheat-creation companies for the online computer game, "Gunz", news additions and further information deserves a spot on Wikipedia. - WX 0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by WX 0 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But do you have any mentions within reliable sources to verify this? Fences&Windows 01:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looking up the PayPal account "[email protected]" verifies this - you'll have to have a PayPal account, follow through for sending a transaction (Of any amount), and on the page before you validate the "Send" request, the status of the PayPal account will be shown. The payment then can be cancelled with no extra fee necessary; this is the only method I know of verifying the existance of a "PayPal business". Here are some links to varying *third-party* websites mentioning MOP:
  - Thanks - WX 0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by WX 0 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The issue is not proving the organisation exists, or does what it claims, but rather that it is notable enough for inclusion in this Encyclopedia. Youtube videos and forums do not establish the notability/importance of this group. You need to demonstrate that this organisation has importance outside the presumably small group of GunZ auto-injector users. (Even 10,000 of them may not make this a notable topic.) - BalthCat (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WX 0, thanks for that, but please read WP:VERIFY, WP:RELIABLE SOURCES and WP:NOTABILITY. We don't doubt that this group exists, but we see no reason to have an encyclopedia article about it. Fences&Windows 21:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MAIET, the parent company for "Gunz Online" has no mention outside of their own forum communities - why should they exist on Wikipedia, if not, MOP as well? In fact, every notice for MAIET is off their "company" homepage; I fail to see how MOP differs.

A reminder, even if you aren't logging in, you should sign your talk posts with four tildes (~). Secondly, demonstrating that MAIET should be deleted doesn't demonstrate that this page shouldn't. In fact I'm trying to find English language sources for the notability of MAIET and failing. That article has no sources. It might get nominated for deletiong too. - BalthCat (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point regardless was, Gunz Online and MAIET both have no outside sources as far as forum communities and YouTube goes - if that's how Wikipedia decides if an article should stay or go, those should be nominated for elimination as well. In fact, many online games on Wikipedia are setup in the same format as the articles for MAIET and Gunz; Combat Arms, Addition, Asiasoft, Drift City, NHN, etc. There are tens leading into the hundreds of thousands of articles setup in this manner, that have not been removed, despite occasionally being edited by administrators; why start removing such articles now? ~ WX 0

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We're not talking about other articles; we're talking about this one. MuZemike 18:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I stand by my original statement: this is a prominent business, and as time goes in, it will became more notoriously famous. It serves to provide invaluable news to Wikipedia users across the board. ~ WX 0

Delete: Barring sources establishing notability, I maintain my original reason for nominating this for deletion "notability, vanity page, vandal created". Also to be deleted: the redirect Mirage Of Penguins. - BalthCat (talk) 05:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Proof of a PayPal account and links to YouTube videos do not prove notability. ERK^talk 07:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, surely? Criteria A7: A group with no indication of importance. Marasmusine (talk) 10:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7 (db-corp), no claims of importance, no WP:RS available to support a WP:NPOV and WP:V article. MLauba (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7 as above; no claims of significance. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:29, 25 June 2009 (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.