Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Online Reality Games
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 of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 14:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Online Reality Games[edit]
This article was originally nothing more than ranting about the ORGs community. I cleaned all that out, and all you have left is this little stub. While I think it's important to define "ORGs" (it does get a bit of use on the internet), I don't think there is enough history here to warrant an article, or even a stub. I say delete and maybe (if necessary) move the definition to Wiktionary. Foofy 16:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my actions, the original article was actually much longer before I rewrote it as a simple stub. I removed content that was unverifiable, POV, and repetitive. After some searching I was unable to find enough history to make the article more than a stub. My intentions weren't to erase content before nomination. Rather I cleaned the article to a stub, after which I decided as a simple definition it was probably something to delete or move. Sorry for the confusion. Foofy 04:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and offer percussive counselling to whoever thought of this abysmal idea. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 17:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with MMORPG. I protest against your edit. By removing 95% of content you made it necessary to evaluate this through the article history. The original text has NPOV problems but appears to be a valid subcategory by content and possibly a valid article under the role-playing games category. Personal taste does not dictate noteworthiness. Durova 17:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood, but it was tagged for cleaning which I did before deciding it was probably delete-worthy. The original article was mainly unverifiably history ("ORG has gone through a series of tumultuous events, such as the first closing of an index, numerous hackings, revolutions, and a series of other events that have gone undocumented."), and POV ("At the current rate, ORGS is in a depression like trance!"). I cut all that out as well as the long list of shows and made the definition/stub that is there now. Not many Google results came up for authoritive ORGs sites so I just used the two links that were already in the article. Foofy 18:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not many Google results? I found nearly 4000 results for the exact phrase "online reality game." POV text doesn't merit summary deletion. What is your expertise in related subjects? Durova 19:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- But most of those top results are links to broken pages or usage in a different context. I deleted the text because it was unverifiable as well as POV. There is no way to confirm that the current state of the ORGs community is in a "depression like stance" or that "VE holds the true resting spot for intense reality gaming." Please see the original article, if there is more to salvage then I am sorry, but I made sure not to "destroy" or delete content that was verifiable. Foofy 19:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I almost voted for deletion before I sniffed out an older version on my own. There's no need to repeat the article's NPOV problem. With over 20 years of role-playing game experience I can evaluate imperfect content. I can't evaluate absence of content. My objection is that you reduced a reasonably sized article to about ten words before nominating it for deletion. That's slanting the vote, don't you think? Durova 01:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This argument is a distraction from fixing the problem. If there is content that can be salvaged to make this more than a simple definition, please add it. I was unable to find any, and there isn't any history to gather, so I rewrote it as a simple stub. I was trying to help, if my intentions were malicious I would have done a better job. - Foofy 04:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I almost voted for deletion before I sniffed out an older version on my own. There's no need to repeat the article's NPOV problem. With over 20 years of role-playing game experience I can evaluate imperfect content. I can't evaluate absence of content. My objection is that you reduced a reasonably sized article to about ten words before nominating it for deletion. That's slanting the vote, don't you think? Durova 01:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- But most of those top results are links to broken pages or usage in a different context. I deleted the text because it was unverifiable as well as POV. There is no way to confirm that the current state of the ORGs community is in a "depression like stance" or that "VE holds the true resting spot for intense reality gaming." Please see the original article, if there is more to salvage then I am sorry, but I made sure not to "destroy" or delete content that was verifiable. Foofy 19:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not many Google results? I found nearly 4000 results for the exact phrase "online reality game." POV text doesn't merit summary deletion. What is your expertise in related subjects? Durova 19:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood, but it was tagged for cleaning which I did before deciding it was probably delete-worthy. The original article was mainly unverifiably history ("ORG has gone through a series of tumultuous events, such as the first closing of an index, numerous hackings, revolutions, and a series of other events that have gone undocumented."), and POV ("At the current rate, ORGS is in a depression like trance!"). I cut all that out as well as the long list of shows and made the definition/stub that is there now. Not many Google results came up for authoritive ORGs sites so I just used the two links that were already in the article. Foofy 18:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- merge. As usual, no deletion required. Trollderella 17:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand Online Reality Games are nothing like video game MMORPG's and shouldn't be included with them. They are for fans of game-show type reality television series such as Survivor, Big Brother, and the Mole. Such fans normally would never be able to play these games offline, so they meet through message boards and instant messenging programs. These games take 16-20 strangers from throughout the globe and challenge them with puzzles as they get to know each other and play the game which usually lasts for 2-3 months. I think this is a valid article as these games have been played for over five years and have been very successful. I myself have personally hosted at least 200 people in these games, I'd imagine that the number of people who have played such a game is easily 3,000+. I was thinking of starting this article, and if it stays I would definitely contribute and expand it appropriately. These games are very much like fantasy football and fantasy sports games and are popular among reality television fans (especially high school and college ones), and with Survivor being watched by ~15 million people weekly it is not an obscure topic. With regard to the "most links are broken pages," this is most likely because the games last for 2-3 months and then a winner is declared, the game ended, and the website abandonded. For an example see here or here. SirSam972 07:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to alternate reality games, which have a very similar name (I almost cast a "Strong keep, do not merge" vote based on my confusion). This article is about fantasy football with reality-TV-style competions, which is basically just a form of fanfiction. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:03, 11 November 2005 (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.