Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mob Wars

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The result was Nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mob Wars[edit]

This article has three sources, one of which is a website which talks about facebook related things, so I do believe it is not independent from the subject.

Besides that, I do not see why this particular game is notable outside of all others that do exactly the same thing, players and profits do not make something notable, significant coverage in reliable sources does, and as far as I can see, it has two. Two is not significant. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 09:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep being one of the most lucrative (and ergo popular) of the tens of thousands of apps on Facebook would seem to be a credible assertion of notability. The sourcing is not great but it does appear to support the claims. Nancy ^talk 10:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~::Last time I checked, the amount of players a game had doesn't assert notability, nor does the fact that it makes money.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 10:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)~~ [reply]

~~See WP:BIGNUMBER.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 10:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

I don't think WP:BIGNUMBER is relevant here. My argument is not that it's "big" but that it is "biggest". There is a huge difference. Nancy ^talk 12:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Not really, the fact of the matter is is that you're still using amount of players in order to establish notability, and the fact is, is that that could be said for any number of things on the internet, but that doesn't make them notable. I've seen web content before that has tried to say it's notable because it has this many players. Well the cold hard truth is that notability is not established by player base or profits.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 23:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NO, show me where I have written that "it is notable because it has many players". Lucrative means profitable and as the most profitable FB app it is notable. If you are going to contest my !vote please at least be accurate with your argument. Nancy ^talk 06:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I struck through my arguments because I read your original argument wrong.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 07:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It does not have two sources, it has three (actually four now) unaffiliated sources listed in the article. What's more, those articles are solely on the game; not one-line mentions half-way through the article. Anyone familiar with me knows that I tend to be fairly conservative on what "notability" means; IMHO this makes the cut, which is why I sourced the article when it was first created and tagged. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it still actually only has three, and three is not significant. One source is used twice, that does not make it have four.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 23:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So how many is "significant" in your eyes? A gsearch for '"mob wars" facebook' returns coverage from Gawker, an NBC affiliate in Los Angeles, The Industry Standard, etc. If you are going to make the case that "X is not significant" then you should point to where "X" is clearly defined and specified in the notability standards. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - At least more than four, right there you only have two. The NBC link is a trivial mention, which doesn't count.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 08:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make that one. I suggest you read this, it's the disclaimer for Gawker, which basically reads that the site cannot be used as a reliable source, eg, it posts rumors and gossip. Read through it, please.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 08:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, currently the wikipedia article has three sources, counting the one you listed above(re: the other two sources do not meet WP:SOURCE.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 09:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because it says "become the most lucrative application on Facebook and the first to net $1m per month in revenue." That is notable. Dream Focus (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.213.1 (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't votes for deletion. It's a discussion, please explain your reasoning.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 10:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs categories, an external links section, probably an info box -- you know, general clean up. However, it does appear to be notable. It has a lot of players, significant revenue, featured coverage in secondary sources, and even mentioned briefly in a couple of news items regarding the addictive nature of Facebook, and and what Facebook should do going forward. Chicken Wing (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Please read WP:BIGNUMBER, the amount of players a game has has nothing to do with notability, also read WP:N, please, as a trivial mention is not grounds to establishing a particular source, as a source. In order for the source to count, the mention must be non-trivial.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 20:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No substantive response, as per my policy with this user. Chicken Wing (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not votes for deletion, refusal to discuss your resoning isn't helping, so instead of being a dick about it, please, treat this AfD how every other AfD is treated, and discuss your reasoning. Refusing to discuss your reasoning with me just because you don't like me is absurd.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 22:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an AfD, Daedalus969, not a platform for you to attack an editor. Try reading WP:CIVIL and WP:GOODFAITH. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't attacking an editor, try visiting the link I posted. This editor is being rude to me because we have differing opinions regarding the blocking policy. In short, he has made it apparent he thinks I'm stupid because I disagree with him. So when he refuses to discuss his reasoning just because he thinks he can't answer without insulting me, it really does show his true colors. Now back off until you can take the time to review all the material, instead of taking a side with hardly any information on the subject.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 06:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I found this sentence in WP:DICK: Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is something of a dick-move in itself... But I fail to see how any prior drama matters here. Please drop it and let's talk about - I dunno - whether this article should be deleted or not, or something wacky like that. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prior drama matters, because he is using that as a scape goat in order to evade my question, or evade having to answer my question, simply because we disagree on a topic.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 06:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable online game. Article could use quite a bit of cleanup. Dreadstar † 05:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - Withdrawn.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 09:41, 12 February 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.