Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PokéBattlers

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 userfy to a User:DX-MON subpage. Grutness...wha? 04:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PokéBattlers[edit]

PokéBattlers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Unsourced article on an unauthorised fan-made Pokemon browser game. No evidence of notability, was tagged with {{db-web}}; the creator asserts [1] that criterion doesn't apply to it. Bringing it here for a wider view just in case this isn't so clear-cut. ~ mazca t|c 18:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as with the original CsD request, a fangame does not meet the general notability requirements of Wikipedia unless the said game had been covered as Super_Mario:_Blue_Twilight_DX was covered on G4 TV. --Mooshykris (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, As part of The PokéBattlers Team, and also as a Software Engineer..... firstly, Software does not apply to just what you "download and run on your desktop". Second, according to Mooshykris's definition of "Software", the new Cloud platforms such as Windows Azure are just "web content", this is NOT true, these PHP/SQL/web-language and Desktop software hybrids are just as much software as your web-browser, or any PHP/ASP applications you care to load with it. A7 may NOT be applied in this senario as Web Software is just another branch of Software. Third: The game does exist, it very much does exist and has for more than 1/2 a year. Forth: A lack of sources is caused to there only being one site to do with it at the moment, so this argument is invalid till the game re-establishes (We resently changed servers and the like so people don't know about it's new location) DX-MON (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Point by point: 1/2. This is a web site. Therefore, it is web content. The fact that there is software which operates it is irrelevant. While you raise an interesting point with regard to cloud computing, your site doesn't use any such technologies, so it's not really applicable here. 3. Existing does not entitle your web site to a Wikipedia article. 4. If having moved recently has caused some reliable sources describing your web site to refer to the wrong address, feel free to cite them anyway. If those sources don't exist in the first place, though, that's not a very good excuse. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • ok, you want to argue with a programmer, have it your way.....: 1/2: when a user directly interacts with a program (as like you do with this site), then is it content, or program?! It's a program still!!. 3: no, I was not saying that, I was saying that the point of it not existing was invalid. 4: There are no sources now as the sources we would have been calling appon have been removed when server changes took place else-where..... I am saying that, please, keep the point of no 3rd party sources yet out of this as there will be sources available within the next year (we hope), so just give it a chance. DX-MON (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Being generated by a program does not make this web site any less a web site. And if all your sources managed to disappear at the same time that you moved, then I fail to see how they could have been independent sources. Zetawoof(ζ) 00:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article reads like an advertisement for webcontent that has not received any coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. Since no 3rd party sources are available to verify the information Wikipedia should not have an article on it. A new name 2008 (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball delete: Creator states that there is only one site to do with it at the moment. That's no other sources, let alone reliable third-party sources. Thus, this article fails the current WP:NOTABILITY and WP:VERIFIABILITY policy at this time. Randomran (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The only reason that there are no 3rd party sources *currently* is that the product is brand-new, if you expect that a product (on first launch) is to have citable refferences immediately, then you are very much mistaken as to what the real world senario is, I do not think that this is a good bassis to delete a new article on, as articles will develop in time if given that time to do so, not if they are imediately killed as they are born. DX-MON (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll also add that according to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, this could possibly count as "self-promotion." --Mooshykris (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If, Mooshykris, you feel that the article is "self-promotion", then please edit it to make it more neutral and more like a commentary on the product, rather than dealing with it in this petty way which does not promote free contribution. DX-MON (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the Google hits are pages that are independent from the creators. Listed as upcoming software, violating WP:CRYSTAL, no independent reviews and almost no visitors. Appears to advertisement. - Mgm|(talk) 20:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, 1: There is a problem with going by Google hits: it takes time for changes to propergate with Google. Also, Google cannot tell you of sources that used to exist and that no longer exist. 2: We are not trying to advertise, if you feel it is, then edit it to be more neutral. DX-MON (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold Request: As Kaboom42 is now offline, I request that the deletion of this article is put on hold till the ideas discussed at User_talk:DX-MON#November_2008 have either been approved, implemented or discarded so that he may stand a chance of saving his first piece of work. I have put forth an idea there that perhaps some of you who are ameanable might want to help re-write the page with us, the PokéBattlers team, so that the problems of NPOV, COI and Crystal Ball can be resolved. DX-MON (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NO fangame meets the notability requirements unless it has reliable sources, period! --Mooshykris (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to comment you've not read that properly...... I'm asking for the deletion to be put on hold till Kaboom42 can cast his decision on what is to happen, and depending on his decision, the potential userfying of the article. I then through in an offer/request to improve the article once in user-space if he so wishes....... You've jumped again. DX-MON (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Kaboom doesn't really had any say in the fate of the article...that's the job of an admin, who I hope one reads this soon, as the conclusion really has been delete. Why can't you just accept that? --Mooshykris (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Because I'm invoking the rules of Userfy articles, as suggested by MuZemike - an admin. Please get that point, otherwise you've just ran head-long into a pile of rules. I am actually getting very annoyed by you as you're obstructing the fact that Kaboom42 aught to have a say as it is his article, and that he deserves to be able to userfy it so he can work on it to make it acceptable, again I refer you to the talk at User_talk:DX-MON#November_2008. This time please READ that as it explains my asking for a hold on deletion. DX-MON (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not an admin. Userfying is just a way to keep the content in the case the article gets deleted so you don't lose all the work. MuZemike (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well I didn't know you're not an admin - you page almost indicates it. Anyway, my point on the rules of userfying still remain, and the fact that Kaboom42 aught to be given a chance to userfy it also remains, and I hope you back me up on that, as he's A) in a different time-zone to me, and B) Has a limited ammount of time on the computer so just whiping the article out from under his feet when he's not looking seems extreamly unfair. DX-MON (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I just happen to have a sexy nice-looking page :) Sysopping is overrated, anyway; it's just a couple of extra tools ;) MuZemike (talk) 04:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note — article has been userfied into DX-MON's namespace to prevent loss of the content, in hopes that the article can be improved and in the future meet the relevant guidelines for inclusion. MuZemike (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2008 (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/PokéBattlers&oldid=1138242155"