Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myth II: Soulblighter Tournaments

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. Conscious 17:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myth II: Soulblighter Tournaments[edit]

Jointly nominating this page as well as the arguably not quite as bad Myth World Cup. This is a perfect example of Wikipedia being used as a free webspace provider. As far as I know these tournaments are not getting any third-party coverage. This is content suited for Myth fanpages and not an encyclopedia. The whole treatment is not encyclopedic, no critical commentary, no sources independent of the subject, original research, unwieldly long lists of tournaments and winners. Pascal.Tesson 20:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

object. Neither the article creator nor the other main contributors were notified. Would suggest userfy to User:The Elfoid so a miniwiki can use the content. Gimmetrow 18:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, so I've notified the creator. But objecting on procedural reasons is not really helpful to the debate. If you agree that this should be userfied then you are in essence agreeing that such content does not respect the core policies of Wikipedia. Pascal.Tesson 20:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson 21:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles have a fair amount of unencyclopedic content - I noted this on the talk page months ago. On the other hand, some of these events have third-party coverage - especially the World Cup events,[1] [2] [3] but also others.[4] Pruning them will be a large project. I would userfy them so the article creator can either have the time to clean them up (within some reasonable time limit), or move them to a miniwiki. Gimmetrow 21:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. There's simply not enough interesting things to be said about these tournaments; if there is, it can easily be summarised in the Myth (computer game) article, with the external references. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Myth World Cup - the topic is notable and the content is verifiable, though it needs some more cleanup. The Tournaments article likewise has some encyclopedic content, but would need a lot of pruning. As I recall, these articles were created as subarticles when the main Myth article became too large. Myth (computer game) article is currently 31k. If merging is to be done, it would be better to take the usable content of Myth II: Soulblighter Tournaments and merge with the World Cup article rather than put anything more in the main Myth article . Gimmetrow 20:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

debatable I can see why the main tournaments page is open to question. The comment on third party support...there was a lot of sponsors out there but details are just too hazy, especially on who actually paid up with prizes at the end. I worked hard on that page so I'm biased, but I think that it should stay, or be adapted into a form we can hang on to. In the main Myth page we can't ignore tournaments altogether but the instant you mentioned a little it seemed impossible to fully describe without going into depth.

MWC on the other hand, I feel absolutely should stay. Whatever happens to the other page, this series had a lot of competitors and is noteworthy because annual events that have so many different organisers are rare. Its one of the oldest surviving on-line gaming tournament series. (The Elfoid 03:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Further note: I feel the MWC page has been vastly improved by clean-ups. Particularly what was done with images. I feel credits for the tournaments should be more extensive as before, but my word is not the final one here I suppose and I have to admit to being a fanboy who would take everything a step further than most others. Definitely keep it in some shape or form though. How many online gaming tournaments in 1999 had 96 teams of average 10 - 16 players in them? And how many games released in 1999 that had no official support after 2001 could organise a 32 man tournament come 2006? Its happened elsewhere I'm sure but is rare enough to be noteworthy.(The Elfoid 03:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Comment with all due respect to The Elfoid (talk · contribs) and Gimmetrow (talk · contribs), it's worth pointing out that they are the main contributors to these pages and WP:ILIKEIT seems to be relevant to the discussion. I think that there's also a big misconception about the term "third-party". I don't really care whether or not the tournaments had sponsors, I'm worried about the apparent absence of significant reliable coverage of these event. That makes most of the content of these pages hard to verify. Pascal.Tesson 03:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Assuming it's not a "big misconception" to consider magazines on gaming and Macintosh as "third-party", the Myth World Cup event has verifiable third party coverage. Whether I've edited that article or not is irrelevant. (In fact, I've edited the World Cup article a total of twice, including once during this AfD.) As for the Tournaments article, yes I've edited it before, the last time being in May. I doubt many of these other tournaments have third party coverage, but I think the article's creator would be in a better position to know. Gimmetrow 04:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Websites like atomicgamer have done some coverage. Inside Mac Games advertises just about any tournament. There's the bungie community at large, including Bungie itself. A lot of information is out there. And while some tournament websites yes - info is hard to find...MWCs all have their official websites. MWC98, 99, 00, 01, 04, 06 all do. MWC05 just went down but existed at time of writing and may well return. MWC03's the only site not around, and when writing things I managed to access it in Archive.org. (The Elfoid 19:15, 27 December 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.