- 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 
keep.
BuickCenturyDriver (
Honk,
contribs,
odometer)
09:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
List of places in Jerusalem
A category (particularly Category:Jerusalem) could handle the job this article is currently performing. -- tariqabjotu 01:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 10:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. From the looks of it, there are already relevant categories within Category:Jerusalem for this. -- Hemlock Martinis 02:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - this is one seriously confused list. I don't regard a hospital or hotel as a place, for example. There is no added value over categories. BlueValour 02:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Having a category is not a reason to delete a list. This list is subsorted into hotels, monuments, and other buildings, which the category doesn't do.
- List has no definition or criteria, which means that every structure and location, past and present, is elegible for inclusion. List adds not context to the content of the categories already in place. Delete -- saberwyn 02:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as a list made redundant by the presence of the category (which is subsorted into various headings and presumably can be further subsorted if need be). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree with Tariqabjotu that a category would do better, and lack of sources or inclusion criteria hampers mainatainability. -- Shirahadasha 03:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- KEEP I think the article could do better and should do better once a few more people who are interested in it interject more information. I say keep it. It seems worth the effort to me and could be a valuable tool for many people who run across it and hopefully expand it.. Artsojourner 05:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- more discussion Maybe it should merge with Jerusalem at some point in the future after it is fleshed out a bit.
Artsojourner
05:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It has five days' worth of discussion from the moment that Tariqabjotu nominated it. Responding to your suggestion of merging it with the article on Jerusalem - with all due respect, I think that's a fundamentally bad idea. Even fleshed out, this will still be a very long (unboundedly long, some might say) list, which is going to take up an awful lot of space in the Jerusalem article if someone puts it there. No other city article has a "list of places" attached, for reasons which I've always taken to be aesthetic as much as anything else. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Artsojourner: This list was originally created as a new article in May 2005 because the original Jerusalem article was getting too long [11]. Thanks, IZAK 12:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per the fact that there are other lists like this one eg List of places in London. Kyriakos 08:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. No reason to take this off WP. BuickCenturyDriver ( Honk, odometer) 08:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep because this is not simply an issue of "lists vs categories" (in any case, lists and categories serve different functions on Wikipedia and both are legitimate, see
Wikipedia:List guideline and
Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes) and it's an integral part of the
Jerusalem article and the {{
Jerusalem}} template on this list's page. This list was originally created as a new article in May 2005 because the original Jerusalem article was getting too long
[12]. Thus this list is part of an important integrated totality. To remove it, or even to move it around, would scar and harm BOTH the
Jerusalem article and the {{
Jerusalem}} template.
IZAK
10:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's neither an integral part of the
Jerusalem article nor an integral part of the {{
Jerusalem}} template. I don't believe the article is linked from the
Jerusalem article anywhere (except in the template) and it's only linked from the template because the article exists. Several of the links in the {{
Jerusalem}} template are links to categories that work perfectly fine. It is true that the page was forked from the
Jerusalem article due to its length, but that alone is not a reason to keep an article. --
tariqabjotu
13:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Tariqabjotu: I am not following your reasoning. If you admit that it's linked the to {{ Jerusalem}} template then it's linked to the Jerusalem article and yes the article exists (that's why you nominated it and that's why we are voting here) unless you nominated something that does not exist so then this vote should be cancelled ASAP, as we can't vote for things that do not exist. IZAK 13:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's neither an integral part of the
Jerusalem article nor an integral part of the {{
Jerusalem}} template. I don't believe the article is linked from the
Jerusalem article anywhere (except in the template) and it's only linked from the template because the article exists. Several of the links in the {{
Jerusalem}} template are links to categories that work perfectly fine. It is true that the page was forked from the
Jerusalem article due to its length, but that alone is not a reason to keep an article. --
tariqabjotu
13:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Might need work but no need to delete as it adds to the various existing pages mentioned above. Intinn Talk! 10:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Lists are redundant with categories if it is an unannotated list of bluelinks in alphabetical order. That is all a category can do. In this case we have a number of redlinks which probably should be made blue at some point. The list also sorts things by type of landmark, collecting all of it on one page, the category system needs to divide it into a series of subcategories to achieve the same. I'll agree that the list probably ought to have some more annotations to it, but this does not make the presence of the list unjustified. In its present form, the list does serve a purpose as a navigational aid, although I won't oppose converting the whole thing into a navigation box (template for use on all Jerusalem landmark articles) if annotations are not forthcoming. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a fair enough article, although in essence it is just a way of keeping a big list of the Jerusalem page, or a fork if you prefer. The Prince 11:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree 100% with
Tariqabjotu that a category would do better or instead merge it with the article about
Jerusalem because the way it is, does not seem very relevant and more like a
wikitravel list (where I think it would be more useful) --
JewBask
11:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- JewBask: This list was originally created as a new article in May 2005 because the original Jerusalem article was getting too long [13]. It is also an important part of the {{ Jerusalem}} template. IZAK 12:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep -- YoavD 12:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep-- yidi 13:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Unless every other list on WP is deleted, no argument was given as to why this is different than any other list on WP.-- Shmaltz 14:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I just skimmed the page, but it seems it might be valuable to someone. If Wikipedia ever implements an ontology system along the lines of Semantic MediaWiki, then it should be possible to auto-generate a list like this (which would then be preferred over manual generation, for many reasons), but until that functionality is available, it will be hard to duplicate this kind of list. So why not keep? — Dfass 14:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, I think it would be better to have a category Jerusalem and link to articles from there, not adding my keep or delete because on the one side I think having this is a good idea, but as a list one can fast loose overview AlfPhotoman 14:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Sjakkalle et al. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Lists and categories serve somewhat different though partially overlapping purposes. Any difficulties in maintaining a list are similar to the difficulties involved in maintaining the category; in fact, if you have one, it makes it fairly simple to maintain the other, and furthermore, if you have both, you are more likely to get a complete set including pages where somebody includes it in the list but doesn't categorize properly, or the other way around. Gzuckier 15:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep A list has the advantage of having each type of place broken down, while we could do that with subcategories that would result in a fair number of categories with few entries. Also, the redlinks are useful to know what doesn't have an article yet. JoshuaZ 16:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep For all the good reasons mentioned above, plus for someone planing to go to Jerusalem it will give him/her a complete picture of what is of interest; I already found some articles that I didn't know existed. I think every city needs to have such a page, not only London and Jerusalem; the servers can handle it. As to the work involved; that's what we're here for; almost seven billion of us. Itzse 16:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep as this is approaching
WP:LC.
dcandeto
16:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep This is really a confusing approach: good cities; some mess-ups.
bobbypirate123
Bobbypirate123
18:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Revise and edit, respectfully. bobbypirate123 Bobbypirate123 18:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep This is really a confusing approach: good cities; some mess-ups.
bobbypirate123
Bobbypirate123
18:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep A category does not group things together, and to leave it in the [Jerusalem] article would make it insufferably long. (PS. Why do people always seem to fall back on the strict laws of whatever manual-of-style is "in" on the given week only when it is in regard with someone else's religion or icons thereof? Ever wondered?)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cockneyite ( talk • contribs)
- strong keep per all the above (and delete the category for what its worth!) Jcuk 21:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep but... I would split this into two articles... one on " Neighborhoods of Jerusalem" and another on " List of buildings and structures in Jerusalem" The rationale is that Jerusalem is one of these ancient historical cities where there may be articles about very specific notable places. Also, I believe there is a wikipedia essay or policy on the difference between lists and categories and how both can be valuable in wikipedia if used correctly. MPS 23:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, Just like there are other articles on list of places for other city's. Shlomke 00:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Good use of grouping. Beginning of description of individual sites. Categories are not good for these. Fg2 01:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep needs expansion and elaboration, but lists and categories each have a place for organizing information. Alansohn 02:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep Other than with the category, the items which have not yet been initiated encourage the creative work of Wikipedians. The Jerusalem article is already very long and it is only natural that for such a large and for many also "central" city as Jerusalem that additional articles should evolve. gidonb 02:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep.
A category could handle the job of this list? So could a paper map. So what? Certain editors prefer using categories. Others prefer using lists. Why should one try to impose its preferences on the other? Also,the list meets WP:LIST by aiding navigation and aiding in the development of new articles. -- Black Falcon 03:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)- A category could handle the job of this list? So could a paper map. So what? I hope that was a joke; for obvious reasons a paper map is not possible. There are decent arguments out there for keeping this article, and so there is no need to resort to a comment like that. --
tariqabjotu
06:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please accept my apologies. It was an unwarranted comment and I have revised my argument so that it is more relevant to the issue at hand. -- Black Falcon 06:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- A category could handle the job of this list? So could a paper map. So what? I hope that was a joke; for obvious reasons a paper map is not possible. There are decent arguments out there for keeping this article, and so there is no need to resort to a comment like that. --
tariqabjotu
06:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - useful. Savidan 05:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Danny-w 15:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Of course we should keep it. If it is "confusing" then make it less confusing, don't delete it. Guy Montag 06:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep this lists vs categories issue has been discussed hundreds of times. It looks like each new wikipedian with particular dslike of some list has to drag us thru the same talk over and over again. `' mikka 19:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-05 10:26Z
TinyWarz
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
A webgame that doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB and doesn't contain information attributable to reliable sources. The three sources provided are a forum link, a weblog, and an unattributed review (I'm guessing user-submitted). search doesn't bring up reliable sources. Wafulz 03:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Wafulz's asessment of the sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Blue's News (a
reliable source) source is not to a message board link, Blue's News archives have a message-board like format. Game was awarded Most Innovative of 2006 by an independent game news site that is also a blog. Lastly, TinyWarz is a notable independent game that is significantly different that other wikipedia-listed browser based games, over half of which have no sources (
Evolution,
Pardus,
Planetarion,
Shartak ... etc.) see
wikipedia's list of browser-based games.
BlKat
- Blue's News doesn't actually have any information about TinyWarz, and I see no reason to separate this weblog from any of the hundreds of thousands of other weblogs out there. Those other games that you've mentioned could also be facing deletion soon (though they're not relevant to this discussion). Notability is not determined subjectively- it has to meet
WP:WEB. --
Wafulz
05:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'd disagree, Blue's News chose to recommend TinyWarz to their readership, that represents a notable achievement for an indie game - are you saying that if CNN were to provide a link to an unknown news site that simply read "Great News Here" that wouldn't be significant? Those other games are relevant to this discussion, TinyWarz was given 6 hours to demonstrate WP:WEB, the authors of those pages were given weeks, months, and even years to get them into shape (I don't want to pull out WP:BITE, but something seems seriously wrong with this). BlKat
- You have until this AFD is closed to bring the article up to standards. Furthermore,
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not an argument. Finally, one will notice that in the past day this site has recommend in an identical fashion no fewer than 4 games, all of which appear to be "indie", as it is put. As this site seems to be nothing but a link aggregator of stuff they think is "cool", I can't in good faith think that being linked to in such a fashion is at all notable. So, I'll say Delete, as well. --
Haemo
06:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- In fact, upon further searching, there appears to be something like 40-odd games recommended in this fashion, with no substantive comment, since the start of 2007. You can't seriously contend that satisfies WP:WEB. -- Haemo 06:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Also, you have a serious WP:COI commenting on this issue without disclosing that you're the primary contributor to the article in question, and then suggesting WP:BITE may apply here. -- Haemo 06:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Blue's News doesn't actually have any information about TinyWarz, and I see no reason to separate this weblog from any of the hundreds of thousands of other weblogs out there. Those other games that you've mentioned could also be facing deletion soon (though they're not relevant to this discussion). Notability is not determined subjectively- it has to meet
WP:WEB. --
Wafulz
05:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- So your main gripe about this article is the citation? I'm sorry but for a game of TinyWarz' size official recognition is few and far between. The author used what he/she could find, but the rest of the information is about the game itself. How is it possible to cite information if there is little outside information on the game to BEGIN with? Dr. Mordecai 18:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Did you just read what you wrote? What you just argued is that this site cannot meet guidelines under WP:WEB, but should be kept regardless. That's patently absurd. If you can't find reliable sources that show this game is notable, it should be deleted per standards under WP:NOTE. This isn't a popularity contest. -- Haemo 01:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Also, it seems to me that the "Blues News" citation is the problem. If that were to be removed, along with the "information" from it, would that alleviate your issues with the page?
- Comment: Well, no, since we are arguing about notability, and this the only evidence of notability provided. If you remove the link, there is no notability, and it should be deleted. -- Haemo 01:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I found this game originaly from that Blues News link. Blues news is a major link sight with comment. I even bought and wore out one of their T shirts. The Journalistic content of Blues News is their. I have seen Commenary and such that brought me back to that sight over and over, just to find out what Blues Dog had done now. I love Blues news and defenetly repect it as a great source of news and info. I really enjoyed the filter of links that he provides to both game and none game topics. There is so much on the internet that one can read, and the job of a good link sight is to tell or suggest to you what you might find interesting, and Blues News Does that for me in spades.
70.59.86.64
19:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Walterohdim
- Comment - how is this any sort of argument for notability? A link, without any comment, from a site that links to many, many sites in a similar fashion does not notability make. -- Haemo 01:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep As a newbee to Wikipedia, I have got a few question to the person who have proposed to delete this article.
- Do you really believe, that games are not a part of our (human) culture and civilization? If you think that several web based games are irrelevant here, why don't you propose to delete the football article? It is not web-based, but still a game.
- Do you really believe, that small things do not deserve placing here? Let's take an example of a small city of Zabrze in Poland. Do you really believe, that it should be deleted, only because the external links lead to something that was created by Poles, who are definitely not objective (like people from the Tiny Warz community), and so they are not reliable? Should we keep small, new things, especially if thay have something special (like TinyWarz 2D graphics interface)? I allways thought, Wikipedians want to be leaders, and not the followers. Or maybe I am too new here to understand the idea of Wikipedia?
- Having read what you have typed, I think that the most serious problem here is that the TinyWarz is not important enough, to deserve being placed in the Wikipedia. Am I right? That is true, TinyWars is a mere entertainment, and does not pretend to be something as important as the Vietnam War. But we do have articles about other games and sports, that are also not so important, don't we?
- One more thing: the same google query, as proposed by Wafulz, but with "-forum" modifier gives 80k hits. Moreover, it is more reasonable to expect some info about a game on website like pc.gamezone.com than at BBC, CNN or in the .edu and .gov domaines. In my opinion, in this case some .edu sites should be cosidered less reliable.
If you believe, that information is not documented enough, maybe you could place the same warning as for the Vietnam War? Rafkory 20:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment this is absurd. If you want to argue that the guidelines under WP:NOTE should not apply, then argue this on WP:NOTE, not here. Guidelines are not subjective, and, yes, non-notable things do not belong on Wikipeida. As a "newbie", perhaps you should review WP:NOTE and WP:NOT, since your suggestion violates both of these. The article on the Vietnam War is exceedingly well document, and the topic is notable. This article is not.
- In addition, subtracting forum means you're getting hits from their forums. It's absurd to claim that makes it notable in any way, shape or forum. -- Haemo 01:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Notability issues aside, there are still no
attributable reliable sources which actually present any sort of information. User-submitted information, minor blogs, and trivial/passing mentions are not substantial or
reliable. --
Wafulz
02:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you don't mind, please tell us which sections in those documents that relate to how this isn't wikipedia worthy.
- Well, right in the nutshell section: "All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source."
- "A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process, or with a poor reputation for fact-checking." -- Wafulz
- If you don't mind, please tell us which sections in those documents that relate to how this isn't wikipedia worthy.
- Reply - To elaborate, upon a cursory examination of the guidelines, there appear to be the following violations of
WP:WEB:
- The content itself has not been the subject of multiple and non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
- The website or content has not won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.
- The content is not distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.
- So, as we will note, it completely fails all notability requirements. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of the material on the page is not attributed to anyone - and certainly not to any reliable sources cited on the page, which in any case say next-to-nothing about the game in any case. -- Haemo 02:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reply - To elaborate, upon a cursory examination of the guidelines, there appear to be the following violations of
WP:WEB:
- Comment Updated sourcing and game type -
massively multiplayer turn-based strategy, which makes TinyWarz unique. Again, this article was nominated for deletion six hours after it was created, this delete seems a little over-zealous. Article now has more sources than most
browser-based games on wikipedia (most of which have none), applying deleter's arguments: shouldn't most articles about browser-based games on wikipedia be up for deletion as well?
BlKat
- Yes, they probably will be deleted once I have the time to research/nominate them. However, the source provided is just a reprinted press release- it was submitted by some random. I could also submit news via the "Submit news" option just below it. It also hasn't "created" a new genre if nothing about that genre has been mentioned yet (though most mentions of this "genre" point to a game called
Evernight, which is also of dubious standing). --
Wafulz
03:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- ... "could also be facing deletion", "probably will be deleted" - can you be any more transparent? You don't intend to delete those articles or nominate them for lack of
WP:WEB (you've had years to it). This one is an easy target, it's still being built; so you can flex your wiki-muscle by going after it. I was really looking forward to joining the wikipedia community, but after this demonstration I think I'll be staying away. I'm not going to join a community that works so hard to destroy the work of others.
BlKat
- I'm not flexing "wikimuscle" at all- I've had articles deleted/nominated for deletion here too. I'm a student, so I have a weird, and often crowded schedule, which means I can't just make a dozen nominations at once. We're all new at some point, and we don't always know how things go around here. If you want some examples of "more established" articles I've nominated for deletion, then here you go: (they're all of the same variety as this one)
- ... "could also be facing deletion", "probably will be deleted" - can you be any more transparent? You don't intend to delete those articles or nominate them for lack of
WP:WEB (you've had years to it). This one is an easy target, it's still being built; so you can flex your wiki-muscle by going after it. I was really looking forward to joining the wikipedia community, but after this demonstration I think I'll be staying away. I'm not going to join a community that works so hard to destroy the work of others.
BlKat
- Yes, they probably will be deleted once I have the time to research/nominate them. However, the source provided is just a reprinted press release- it was submitted by some random. I could also submit news via the "Submit news" option just below it. It also hasn't "created" a new genre if nothing about that genre has been mentioned yet (though most mentions of this "genre" point to a game called
Evernight, which is also of dubious standing). --
Wafulz
03:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, not all material is suited for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I don't intend to make you feel victimized. -- Wafulz 04:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- KEEP You didn't give this time enough to get into code.
Whistles384
04:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)whistles384
- I'm not sure what you mean by the code comment. Also, you just need the four tildes- you don't have to type your name out. -- Wafulz 04:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- What I meant was that you didn't even give it enough to get up to the guidelines. You just randomly found this conveniently after 6 hours of it posting and decided to delete it without being conscientious of the little newbie guidelines that BlKat stated up there.
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 04:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - you have until this AFD closes to bring it up to standards. If this topic really is notable, then you should have no problems doing that. If you can bring it up to standards, I would gladly rescind my objections to inclusion. As it stands, you have not made any serious progress towards doing this, and my objections stand. I also seriously object to any accusation of WP:BITE - enforcing Wikipedia's guidelines in a civil and forthright manner is not "biting" anyone, and I find it tests the boundaries of my good will to be repeatedly accused of it in this discussion. -- Haemo 05:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, lack of credible citations is listed as a problem which "may not require deletion" in the
Deletion_policy. Furthermore, the policy states that for deletion, the article must clearly violate the notability requirement. Tinywarz was cited by a popular game news website, and has over 30,000 external references (from google), so it's not clearly non-notable. In fact, looking at the pages that were
deleted for being "not notable", it seems this reason is used exclusively for entries which have no external references at all. The two obscure web-games brought up earlier also had
deletion
discussions over notability, and both were kept. --
yaroslavvb
- From the deletion policy: Articles and text which are capable of meeting these should usually be remedied by editing, but content which fails inclusion criteria for Wikipedia, is incapable of verification with reputable sources, or is in breach of copyright policy, is usually deleted. Those other articles, while not relevant to this discussion, should really be renominated (they defaulted to a "keep" because of lack of substantial discussion). --
Wafulz
04:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Again, we have specifically addressed this argument. This article does not meet standards under WP:NOTE, and therefore does not qualify for inclusion. The fact that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on this - especially when the keep was procedural! None of the sources assert, or support notability for this game, and, frankly, you aren't even arguing they do. Instead, you have decided that we should just ignore policy because, apparently, WP:ILIKEIT. This is not a compelling argument, and I strongly urge you to read up on the guidelines under WP:NOTE and WP:WEB before making arguments that run directly contrary to Wikipedia policy. -- Haemo
- From the deletion policy: Articles and text which are capable of meeting these should usually be remedied by editing, but content which fails inclusion criteria for Wikipedia, is incapable of verification with reputable sources, or is in breach of copyright policy, is usually deleted. Those other articles, while not relevant to this discussion, should really be renominated (they defaulted to a "keep" because of lack of substantial discussion). --
Wafulz
04:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- REPLY Is there a problem with having information in an encyclopedia? Why are you (you being the collective group of "editors") attacking internet games, vying for their deletion? Allowing SOME information in and deleting others based on arbitrary, albeit confusing rules seems to be more of a restriction of information. How are we supposed to fix the page when it's doomed from the get-go? Is there anything you could suggest that would be HELPFUL and not as negative as deleting it?
Dr. Mordecai
04:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- The rules are not arbitrary- Wikipedia cannot be a primary source. Only attributable information is allowed to be used. While this page might be "doomed from the get go", there are tons of other articles that need work. Check out Wikipedia:Community Portal/Opentask for a good place to start. -- Wafulz 04:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Echoing this, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. No one is attacking anything, and the rules are neither confusing nor arbitrary. To repeat, notability is not an arbitrary, nor a subjective attribute of topic. Either bring the article up to standards, or it will be deleted. -- Haemo 05:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break
- I would like to note that NO ONE has asked any of us to say anything here. We do this because we want to
Whistles384
04:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's mostly precautionary in this case. -- Wafulz 04:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I will assume
good faith that this is true, but it is frankly more than a little suspicious to see a large number of brand-new contributors all appear, and make edits solely to an
WP:AFD discussion, with apparent little to no regard, or understanding, of established Wikipedia policy. --
Haemo
05:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- We don't need understand of the wiki policy to argue for something we want to stay put.
Whistles384
05:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I think this just about summarizes the entire debate right here. You don't understand Wikipedia policy, or it's guidelines - but frankly, you couldn't care less, because WP:ILIKEIT. That's not an argument! That's patently the most ridiculous thing I have encountered, and a singularly offensive attitude to anyone who cares about this project. This is not a popularity contest. Your personal like or dislike has no bearing on this, and I strongly urge you to strike out all your comments if this is the rationale you have behind your argument. This is not a vote, and outright denials of Wikipedia policy totally abuse this process and degrade the Encyclopedia as a whole. -- Haemo 05:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- We don't need understand of the wiki policy to argue for something we want to stay put.
Whistles384
05:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- OK, For one thing, I'd like to know. Other than DrMordecai and Whistlese, have any of you people played the game? If you had, you'd know that there are MANY reliable sources in the game, for the game! Jesus, by your warped logic, all the articles on online games lack "reliable sources" - except for all the commercial games. Does anyone here in your so called "Editor's Circle" have anything useful to say to help us? How can we improve the TW page? Because, to me, it seems like all you're doing is slinging poo all over the place. --
LordRex
16:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Find game reviews from reliable sources. Most often, online games are kept because they have had a full-length review printed in a widely syndicated gaming magazine. If you can't find one of those, try and find full-length reviews from websites that don't contain user-submitted reviews/recommendations/etc. Articles in major newspapers too. The only catch with all this is that the articles must have more than a passing mention (ie, more than a short blurb). Reliable sources have some sort of editorial oversight and credibility to them; Wikipedia articles are only as credible as their sources- if the sources aren't credible, then the information isn't credible, meaning it should be removed. -- Wafulz 05:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Independent review added! Does that improve our standings? --
Jester
- Again, this is an archive of a random weblog. See above with regards to editorial oversight. -- Wafulz 05:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- In fact, it looks like this website is a conglomeration of friends posting on a shared weblog. The fact that "LOL" appears 7 times on the first page alone isn't comforting. -- Wafulz 05:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Again, I must ask that editors read the standards under WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOTE, and WP:WEB. This does not satisfy those, for obvious reasons. -- Haemo
- Wafulz, in regard to the use of "LOL" here is the introduction to the staff page:
"The distinguished staff of TIGSource are a varied lot, culled from all over cyberspace to bring you all your indie gaming news, all the time.
Want to join the elite ranks of volunteers? Just pop me an e-mail telling me why you're fit to be a TIGSource editor. Probably the easiest way to get accepted to TIGSource is to have good writing skills - just because we're casual and fun doesn't mean that we type like monkeys! The second is enthusiasm. You gotta love indie games. Both should be reflected in your e-mail, so don't slouch!"
They may not be proffessional but they are an independent source and quite numerous. The main fact we're trying to get across is that this game does not have major recognition but does have unbaised reviews from external sources. Provided this page continues to exist we will continue updating and trying to gain more "appropriate" reviews for more distinguished sources. But you must understand that if you kill this site from the start than we'll barely have the chance to do so. Also Haemo, "obvious reasons" isn't a phrase I particularly like, these guides are very wordy and difficult to translate into real english. If you would care to properly articulate why this latest reference is unworthy, it would be appreciated. -- Jester
- Well, from your excerpt: "Want to join the elite ranks of volunteers? Just pop me an e-mail telling me why you're fit to be a TIGSource editor. Probably the easiest way to get accepted to TIGSource is to have good writing skills." Basically, anyone can become a "game reviewer" for the site provided they write well (which is really subjective judging from the entries). These people don't even have to be well-versed in anything online, let alone in games, which speaks piles about their credibility. It's the same as picking up someone off the street and asking them their opinion of the game.
- I've done a pretty exhaustive search for good sources, and it doesn't look like the article has a chance of surviving. If you'd like, an administrator can have a copy of the article moved to your user page (or someone else's), sort of "housing" it until better sources (assuming they exist) come up sometime in the future. This is probably the best solution available right now- it won't have an article, but all the work on won't be lost. --
Wafulz
06:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Wafluz, you said "Basically, anyone can become a "game reviewer" for the site provided they write well (which is really subjective judging from the entries)". What other skills are necessary to write articles for Wikipedia? Sorry, but your argument does not convince me. On the other, I would like to thank you for the helpful hint.
- Wafluz, so, exactly what does TW lack in comparison to Earth 2025? Maybe instead of harping on about what's wrong, maybe you can offer your unique brand of insight on what we can do to make the TW page more interesting and more "up to standard". And maybe, just maybe, you can play the game for yourself and make an informed opinion on it. --
LordRex
17:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I could become a writer for that website. I could make a post going "Hey I heard about this game TinyWarz. It's really lousy and awful, avoid it at all costs." I don't even have to prove that I've played it, and yet by that site's standards I could write whatever I feel like. Anyone can write for it- it's not a good source, and that should be pretty clear. Earth 2025 has won two Webby Awards, which clearly meets WP:WEB, and has had multiple reviews (though only one is cited, I'll admit). These reviews are not user-submitted, and they actually have names attached to them too. Its publisher has also been named as a featured publisher by Right Media. I'm not here to make a judgement call on TinyWarz- I'm here to decide if there are reliable sources for the subject, of which there appear to be none. -- Wafulz 13:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - first of all, stop with the personal attacks. They're totally unproductive, and contrary to Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, we have clearly outlined what needs to be done - find reliable sources that assert, and support, notability for this game. None have been produced, so this article, by Wikipedia's own guidelines, should be deleted. Furthermore, read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS before repeating this same argument. If you think Earth 2025 should be deleted, then nominate; don't try to get this article kept because another article does not meet standards either. -- Haemo 07:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wafluz, so, exactly what does TW lack in comparison to Earth 2025? Maybe instead of harping on about what's wrong, maybe you can offer your unique brand of insight on what we can do to make the TW page more interesting and more "up to standard". And maybe, just maybe, you can play the game for yourself and make an informed opinion on it. --
LordRex
17:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Mentioning entries like
Shartak and
Planetarion has to do with precedent, rather than "
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS". Similar discussion over deletion was initiated over two entries with similar problems as this one, and the editor decision was to keep. --
yaroslavvb
- I could bring up precedent which led to deletion too. It's not relevant if it doesn't even meet policy. --
Wafulz
13:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Precedent is relevant because it saves time on discussion that has taken place already. Similar arguments were brought up for
Shartak and
Planetarion and were not found sufficient, so the question is -- if they didn't work there, why would they work here? I believe you are trying to apply
WP:WEB too strictly. Looking at the first several dozen deletions due to
WP:WEB in deletions log, they seem to be used for entries with no external references at all, not the case here. --
yaroslavvb
- Neither of them really discussed
WP:RS or
WP:ATT (which are thresholds of inclusion). Most of it was spent bickering about "this number is big", which is not at all the main point in my nomination. --
Wafulz
00:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- If the problem is not notability, but lack of sources, why not use the
Unreferenced tag, and give Wikipedia community time to find some sources? After all, this entry is fairly new. For instance, that's what editors decided to do for
Dark_throne which also lacked sources at the time of AfD
nomination.--
yaroslavvb
- This is a five day process. If sources can't be found in five days, then they likely won't be found at all. --
Wafulz
15:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Five days is too short. Another entry I contributed to (
Morphological_image_processing) took several months before even one external source was found. In fact, I'm willing to bet that if you take wikipedia entries at random, most of them started as unreferenced descriptions, and had references added weeks or even months later. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Yaroslavvb (
talk •
contribs)
17:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
- Well internet articles tend to have internet sources. If they exist, and if any are found, I'm sure they can be mentioned on this article's new home on the Tinywarz wiki- there's no need to keep unsourced material here just for the sake of keeping it just in case some sources exist. --
Wafulz
00:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- The reason to keep unsourced material is because it was just added, and the wikipedia community hasn't had enough time to add sources. The argument here seems to be that the if the Wikipedia community doesn't find sources within 5 days, the entry must be deleted. That is against the spirit of Wikipedia, and you can find many entries for which the sources were added weeks or months after the entry's creation. Similar discussion took place over deletion of Dark Throne entry and the decision was to keep the article with "Unreferenced" template -- yaroslavvb
- Furthermore, why would any editor produce an article in good faith that they knew did not meet standards? That violates not only Wikipedia policies, but the principle of the Encyclopedia itself. A hypothetical future source, which no one can find or produce, does not notability make. --02:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Editors are not paid, and you can't expect all the editors to always reference their information, that's why they put it on wiki where other people can add references. As far as notability, I think you are trying to apply it too strictly. I gave two examples which are very similar to tinywarz (in a sense that google doesn't give reliable sources) and for which discussion over notability led to a negative (
Shartak and
Planetarion). If you look at the list of recent deletions over notability, you'll see that it's used almost exclusively to delete one/two paragraph entries with people writing about themselves, or things that can't be found on google at all. --
yaroslavvb
- If you look at the list of recent deletions over notability, you'll see that it's used almost exclusively to delete one/two paragraph entries with people writing about themselves, or things that can't be found on google at all. I don't know where you're getting this from- while it is sometime the case, it's certainly not exclusive. Material must be
attributable from the get go. There's no way around this. --
Wafulz
16:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that it must be attributable, but just don't agree that five days is long enough for wikipedia community to find proper attribution. Five days is too short to delete it for lack of sources, number of internet references to tinywarz and people interested in this topic is too large to delete it for lack notability. --
Yaroslavvb
- I'm not sure of your logic here. You seem to be claiming that the 'number of internet references' and number of 'people interested' is 'too large', yet say you (or someone else) can't find a couple of
reliable sources when you're given five days.
Nuttah68
19:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's pretty typical of Wikipedia though. I'm willing to bet that most entries in wikipedia existed without any references for the first couple of weeks (just look at History for some random pages), and had references added later. You can't expect the original the first 1 or 2 editors to fill out all required information, that's the whole point of having the Wikipedia community to fall back on. All I'm saying is that we should tag the page with "Unreferenced" template as and give some time for the wikipedia community to fill in the sources (a month maybe?). -- Yaroslavvb
- I'm not sure of your logic here. You seem to be claiming that the 'number of internet references' and number of 'people interested' is 'too large', yet say you (or someone else) can't find a couple of
reliable sources when you're given five days.
Nuttah68
19:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that it must be attributable, but just don't agree that five days is long enough for wikipedia community to find proper attribution. Five days is too short to delete it for lack of sources, number of internet references to tinywarz and people interested in this topic is too large to delete it for lack notability. --
Yaroslavvb
- If you look at the list of recent deletions over notability, you'll see that it's used almost exclusively to delete one/two paragraph entries with people writing about themselves, or things that can't be found on google at all. I don't know where you're getting this from- while it is sometime the case, it's certainly not exclusive. Material must be
attributable from the get go. There's no way around this. --
Wafulz
16:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Editors are not paid, and you can't expect all the editors to always reference their information, that's why they put it on wiki where other people can add references. As far as notability, I think you are trying to apply it too strictly. I gave two examples which are very similar to tinywarz (in a sense that google doesn't give reliable sources) and for which discussion over notability led to a negative (
Shartak and
Planetarion). If you look at the list of recent deletions over notability, you'll see that it's used almost exclusively to delete one/two paragraph entries with people writing about themselves, or things that can't be found on google at all. --
yaroslavvb
- Well internet articles tend to have internet sources. If they exist, and if any are found, I'm sure they can be mentioned on this article's new home on the Tinywarz wiki- there's no need to keep unsourced material here just for the sake of keeping it just in case some sources exist. --
Wafulz
00:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Five days is too short. Another entry I contributed to (
Morphological_image_processing) took several months before even one external source was found. In fact, I'm willing to bet that if you take wikipedia entries at random, most of them started as unreferenced descriptions, and had references added weeks or even months later. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Yaroslavvb (
talk •
contribs)
17:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
- This is a five day process. If sources can't be found in five days, then they likely won't be found at all. --
Wafulz
15:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- If the problem is not notability, but lack of sources, why not use the
Unreferenced tag, and give Wikipedia community time to find some sources? After all, this entry is fairly new. For instance, that's what editors decided to do for
Dark_throne which also lacked sources at the time of AfD
nomination.--
yaroslavvb
- Neither of them really discussed
WP:RS or
WP:ATT (which are thresholds of inclusion). Most of it was spent bickering about "this number is big", which is not at all the main point in my nomination. --
Wafulz
00:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Precedent is relevant because it saves time on discussion that has taken place already. Similar arguments were brought up for
Shartak and
Planetarion and were not found sufficient, so the question is -- if they didn't work there, why would they work here? I believe you are trying to apply
WP:WEB too strictly. Looking at the first several dozen deletions due to
WP:WEB in deletions log, they seem to be used for entries with no external references at all, not the case here. --
yaroslavvb
- I could bring up precedent which led to deletion too. It's not relevant if it doesn't even meet policy. --
Wafulz
13:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It seams to me, that the problem editors are trying to point out, is the lack of the notoriety that is confirmed by independent sources, that are reliable from the editors point of view. In such cases, there are two solutions proposed: either to delete, or to merge with the article, that stisfies the criterion of notoriety. The same was propsed for the Saint Monica's Church, Barre: "Merge into Barre, Vermont." Do the editors believe, that the article about the web games satisfy the standards? If so, we might just propse to move TW to that article, until the right sources are found.
- Telling the true, due to the nature of the web games (all of them) they need a lot of time to become known to so called "general public", unless they have a big company supporting it, that is able to spend money on PR. If I may use the analogy, the same sittuation is with the SF books in Poland. Books published in big number of copies are not either mentioned by the "mainstream" magazines, that are sponsored by the Ministery of Culture, as there are not "serious" enough. Using this criterion, you would not be allowed to place any SF authors in Polish Wikipedia but Isaac Assimov, Philip K. Dick, Stanisław Lem and Mikhail Bulgakov and authors, whose books were used for making a movie picture. For all the other authors, the sources that exist are linked to SF community, and not the official 'literature' organisations, i.e. they do not satisfy the independence criterion .
Rafkory 11:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not having native-language sources is not the same as having zero sources. I nominated the game Popomundo a while back, but withdrew my nomination once it was revealed that there were sources in Spanish. -- Wafulz 13:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Sources seem to be blogs and sites that have no established reputation for fact checking. Arguments for keep seem to be WP:ILIKEIT. — Ocatecir Talk 11:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Nowehere near notable enough for a web game as far as I'm concerned, sources are in no way reliable, only arguement for keeping appears to be
WP:ILIKEIT and self-promotional reasons, and the article is riddled with game guidey and how-to-play information, which violates
WP:NOT.
The Kinslayer
11:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Despite many polite requests the article still has no
reliable sources to support the notability claimed.
Nuttah68
13:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I don't see any reliable sources. Has it been written about in any magazines or newspapers, for instance? I couldn't find any on LexisNexis. — brighterorange ( talk) 14:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment this oddly feels like a continuation or expansion of the recent slate of afd's for various webcomics. if that is deliberate or accidental is a completely different debate. however, from what i have been able to glean from those debates, the afd should be the _second step_ after a request for sources hasn't been met. but, somebody will probably say if such is formal policy or just basic politeness. so base question, was that formal request for sources even made, or did somebody just light the primer cord on the article without even making the cursory attempt to start the process to fix it. 70.51.53.37 14:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC) steuben (fixing my spelling)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=TinyWarz&oldid=110529681 As this diff shows, the prod clearly states where the article was failing, and the removal of the prod by an editor is tantamount to acknowledgement of the articles failings. Following the failure to actually address these isssues, the deletion process was moved to an AfD. So yes, a chance was given for the article to be fixed, but it was squandered. The Kinslayer 14:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would like to know how a game is to be reviewed without someone actually playing it. Whistles384 16:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's not an issue for wikipedia.
The Kinslayer
16:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Echoing this, you seem to have maintained the belief throughout this whole AFD that this is process is somehow a "review" of the game. It's not. We're not reviewing the game - we're evaluating whether or not it should included in this Encyclopedia. Since it does not meet minimum standards under
WP:WEB, it should not be included. --
Haemo
16:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's not what I mean. You guys say that there needs to be a source that is reputable and can't have anyone's opinion of the game in the reviews. How can the game be reviewed without someone actually playing it first? That's how all reviews are done. Whistles384 17:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Echoing this, you seem to have maintained the belief throughout this whole AFD that this is process is somehow a "review" of the game. It's not. We're not reviewing the game - we're evaluating whether or not it should included in this Encyclopedia. Since it does not meet minimum standards under
WP:WEB, it should not be included. --
Haemo
16:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's not an issue for wikipedia.
The Kinslayer
16:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment WP:WEB is an invalid arguement in this case. tinywarz is a game not a website. it is a game that happens to played through <insert browser here>. if tinywarz was played through a downloaded and separate client then the WP:WEB arguement would not apply. so by extenstion neither does the WP:WEB here. unless Wafulz would like to expand on reasons for including the wp:web argument. 70.51.53.37 16:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)steuben
- You answered your own question.
WP:WEB applies because you don't download anything to play. You said so yourself, you have to launch a web browser, go to the web site and play the game whilst surfing the web. There is no 'by extension',
WP:WEB applies to web sites, and this game is played through a web site. Or to put it another way, the website is the game and the game is the website. Very simple, no big leap of logic needed. Looking at your argument, what you have essentially said is:
WP:WEB doesn't apply because you play the game through a web site. If you had to download anything, then
WP:WEB would indeed not apply. It is then covered by
WP:SOFTWARE and this article would STILL be here in an AfD.
The Kinslayer
16:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I disagree with such an argument for basically the same reasons. First of all, WP:WEB does apply, as per Kinslayer's argument. Moreover, even if it did not the reason for deletion is per WP:NOTE and WP:ATT, which WP:WEB is a subset of - thus, a simple reductio argument shows that deletion is the proper standard in either respect. -- Haemo 16:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I would also just like to comment that, despite assertions to the contrary, this AFD has been linked to from the TinyWarz wiki http://wiki.mobrulestudios.com/index.php?title=Main_Page by a developer. So, I would suggest tagging SPA's as they arise. On the plus side, the TinyWarz page has apparently also been TransWiki'd to their personal Wiki, so we can avoid having to do that. -- Haemo 16:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 all. - Mailer Diablo 15:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
List of Mario Party 3 minigames
- And also List of Mario Party 4 minigames, List of Mario Party 5 minigames, List of Mario Party 6 minigames, List of Mario Party 7 minigames, List of Mario Party 8 minigames
- Previous nomination, which was withdrawn, can be found here.
Trivia. Not encyclopedic. Unsourced. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. No actual improvement since previous AFD. >Radiant< 08:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: there is an emerging AfD standard for such articles. See recently closed List of Mario Party minigames at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party minigames and List of Mario Party Advance minigames at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party Advance minigames. All these "List of Mario Party * minigames" are of comparable quality, so AfD decisions should be portable. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 08:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: The List of Mario Party minigames decision was entirely opinionated. Bowsy ( review me!) 17:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 08:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete this belongs on GameFAQs or somewhere, not in an encyclopaedia. Guy ( Help!) 09:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep or merge to main articles: Not trivia, I will source it very soon, this isn't an unencyclopedic list, passes WP:NOT as it isn't game guide material, the list just goes on ..... Henchman 2000 10:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- As these articles are linked to a major CvG sereis, a merge would also be appropriate. Henchman 2000 18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Merge them all into a Table of Mario Party games. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - A prose section in the main article using a combination of secondary sources and the primary source is more appropriate an encyclopedia-like. As it is, this is not useful for people who already know about the games and not useful for people who don't. This is fairly analogous to a plot summary and I believe the reasoning behind articles not being plot summaries is applicable to this as well. No improvement since at last AFD too. Wickethewok 14:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC
- Wikiproject:Nintendo's aims, is to provide a comprehensive and detailed guide to Nintendo, which is what this list does.
Henchman 2000
18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Also, how are these lists not useful for people who don't know the minigames? Henchman 2000 08:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all. A clear case of Wikipedia is not a game guide, as the other recent Mario Party AfDs have shown. Krimpet ( talk/ review) 14:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per precedent of the other Mario Party AfD's. I will reiterate my previous opinion that these are essentially unsourced game FAQs and do not warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. Arkyan • (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you look, you will find that only the LMP3mgs is unsourced, so WP:ATT is no reason for deletion. Henchman 2000 18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all, not acceptable encyclopedia content per WP:NOT. In addition to that, the "articles" are unsourced, thereby failing WP:ATT. Picaroon 17:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- See comment above. Henchman 2000 18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep: In no way is this trivia. Mario Party is about minigames over anything else. Bowsy ( review me!) 17:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all per WP:NOT. One Night In Hackney 303 17:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- THis doesn't fail
WP:NOT, also, you must show why you think it *can't* pass WP:NOT.
Henchman 2000
18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- On the contrary, one could interpret this as failing either
WP:NOT#DIR and/or
WP:NOT#INFO. Note that there are no hard and fast definition of NOT given, just examples and a rough definition. The purpose then of the AfD debate is to establish consensus as to whether an article passes guidelines - if a user feels that it violates
WP:NOT there is nothing in the guidelines or policy that says the user must show why the article cannot pass inclusion criteria.
Arkyan •
(talk)
18:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you want a strong argument, then yes, you must. Henchman 2000 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- On the contrary, one could interpret this as failing either
WP:NOT#DIR and/or
WP:NOT#INFO. Note that there are no hard and fast definition of NOT given, just examples and a rough definition. The purpose then of the AfD debate is to establish consensus as to whether an article passes guidelines - if a user feels that it violates
WP:NOT there is nothing in the guidelines or policy that says the user must show why the article cannot pass inclusion criteria.
Arkyan •
(talk)
18:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Mini-game lists lack any merit and fail WP:NOT for being game guides. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- And how do they do that? Henchman 2000 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all Fails WP:NOT and for the most part [[WP:ATT]. Listcruft. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Cruft is no valid reason for deletion, and look carefully at almost every comment on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fancruft, there you will find that any delete vote of "cruft" of any description should be discounted and there is a consensus for this. Henchman 2000 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all per nomination. It's game guide content that is better suited for a gaming wiki. No list page for all of them is needed at Wikipedia either. RobJ1981 20:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all. WP:NOT#IINFO seems very relevant here as noted by Radiant, Wikthewok, et al. The WP:ATT issue is subsidiary to this as better sourcing would not fix the core problem. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all. These can never expand beyond basic gameplay descriptions or game guide material. I recommended redirecting at some of the other discussions, but upon further reflection that is not the best idea. --- RockMFR 20:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete All per all possible arguments. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 22:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, per other debates. Axem Titanium 22:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all. Yes, I know in the past I've said I'd prefer to keep these lists. However, I have changed my mind there, seeing that this is unsourced and fails
WP:NOT#INFO, as the nom stated. My main concern with these lists is: How are they encyclopedic? "Mario Party is more about minigames than anything else." Sure. But how does a list of them benfit the encylopedia? From
List of Mario Party 3 minigames: "Eye Sore- Circle around a Mr. I to shrink it away. Avoid Podoboos." Is that somehow not game guide material? Every other MP minigame list has this problem as well, except that they have a more encylopedic tone. —
Malcolm
Use
the
schwartz!
23:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- These articles are sourced.
Henchman 2000
17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- They don't directly source the minigames in question. Also, please remember formatting here, with asterisks (*). — Malcolm Use the schwartz! 19:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- These articles are sourced.
Henchman 2000
17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all In what situation would this be of use to a user of an encyclopedia? That is how I read most of the WP:NOT guidelines. Slavlin 02:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- THis benefits those that are looking for precise information, and an encyclopedia is supposed to give precise information, isn't it? And this is not indiscriminate as it is linked to a notable sereis. Henchman 2000 18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
If these articles cannot be kept, put them on my userspace Henchman 2000 17:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest you download them onto your hard drive if you want to keep them, we are not a web hosting service. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Other users are allowed to put deleted articles on their userspace, so why shouldn't I?
Henchman 2000
18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Because the only purpose would be to recreate or to rehaul it, and neither would fly. People save content to improve the article over time (often to solve problems people have with the AfD). -
A Link to the Past
(talk)
00:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- If they were put into my userspace, I would give them a massive cleanup and hopefully solve these problems and make them acceptable for all, I would want to show these articles to editors like yourself so that you could advise me on how to improve them further, or tell me if you thought they were acceptable. That would fly. 14:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- I would be really impressed if you managed to make the article both quality and not violations of
WP:ATT and
WP:NOT, considering doing so would entail destroying the article. -
A Link to the Past
(talk)
19:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- I will manage to make it pass these articles and it won't destroy the articles, in fact, you could help if you wanted to. Henchman 2000 07:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- I would be really impressed if you managed to make the article both quality and not violations of
WP:ATT and
WP:NOT, considering doing so would entail destroying the article. -
A Link to the Past
(talk)
19:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- If they were put into my userspace, I would give them a massive cleanup and hopefully solve these problems and make them acceptable for all, I would want to show these articles to editors like yourself so that you could advise me on how to improve them further, or tell me if you thought they were acceptable. That would fly. 14:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Because the only purpose would be to recreate or to rehaul it, and neither would fly. People save content to improve the article over time (often to solve problems people have with the AfD). -
A Link to the Past
(talk)
00:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Other users are allowed to put deleted articles on their userspace, so why shouldn't I?
Henchman 2000
18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Merge. I think one page with a table of all the Mario Party mini-games from all the games should be kept. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Useight ( talk • contribs).
- Merge all related articles into one A game guide explains how to play the game in detail, this isn't a game guide. Also not indiscriminate as they are clearly linked together by a notable game. If not merged into an article or list of its own, these could be cut down and merged into the game articles. At the very least there's some salvageable content in here.
Mgm|
(talk)
10:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- No. Notability is not defined by being associated with a notable thing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Merge. One massive list of Mario Party games is better than 7+.
MrMacMan
22:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Better, yes. Good enough, no. -
A Link to the Past
(talk)
04:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please don't imply that your opinion is somehow better than mine since you didn't actually rebut my point with an actual policy or guideline. MrMacMan 08:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- How about one violation of WP:ATT and WP:NOT is better than seven, but still not within our inclusion policy? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Better, yes. Good enough, no. -
A Link to the Past
(talk)
04:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- WP:NOT an INDISCRIMINATE collection of info but this isn't indiscriminate as it is on a notable subject. f it was random crap I could understandbut it's not. Also, they are NOT GAME GUIDES because a game3 guide gives THROUGH instructions with hints and tips. Oh, and the articles ARE sourced. Have you seen the "References" section yet? Bowsy ( review me!) 10:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete the lot of them.
WP:NOT a game guide works well here, as well as no claim whatsoever to any sort of notability. Game guides would be a trivial work here. Remember the standard is that it has to have been the subject of multiple non-trivial works before it can be considered notable. -
M
ask
20:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand, can you please simplify what you're saying about notability and why these articles don't qualify. Henchman 2000 07:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete All The Mario Party series of games are indeed notable, but the individual games within Mario Party certainly are NOT. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 14:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 merge to Circumcision. I think, since content was merged back, we may need this around for GFDL purposes. Consensus favors deletion. Mango juice talk 18:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Circumcision policies of various countries
- Circumcision policies of various countries ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
Article consists almost entirely of quotes from source material. Per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, Wikipedia should not contain "Mere collections of ... other source material." Jakew 11:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Haven taken "Human Sexuality" in college we covered this topic at great length, so I understand its importance. Some countries do not allow for circumcision, while in some countries "female" circumsion (female genital infibulation) is almost required at a certain age. The article needs should be rewritten to cover this history of these policies and their origins and their modern days practices. -- Ozgod 12:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep' Provided changes mentioned by Ozgod are made. Circumcision is a worthy subject, maybe revert it and stub it. Intinn Talk! 13:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - In addition to the concerns raised by the nominator, the article is apparently based on a false premise. I am unaware that circumcision policy is formulated at the national level and the article does not support the notion that it is. Otto4711 14:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
* Merge back into
Circumcision. It was unilaterally spun off anyway. Put it back where it belongs.
Avi
18:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per above.
Nomen Nescio
Gnothi seauton
18:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'd agree that some brief quotes are needed in the
circumcision article, but do we really need 14 mostly long paragraphs of quoted material? According to
WP:FU: "Inclusion of brief attributed quotations of copyrighted text, used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea is acceptable under fair use. Text must be used verbatim: any alterations must be clearly marked. ... In general, extensive quotation of copyrighted news materials (such as newspapers and wire services), movie scripts, or any other copyrighted text is not fair use and is prohibited by Wikipedia policy."
Jakew
19:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I agree, but there is a particular user (actually one current and a few dormant) who have a tendency to cherry-pick and make improper claims about those policies, so the only recourse at the time was to bring the entire text to prevent mischaracterization of the sources. Should this not be a problem, I too would be happy to shave it down; but that does not change the fact that this material properly belongs on the Circumcision page, and not its own article. Actually, I may do what I did with Anti-Zionism, and bring a short paraphrase in the article and the extire text in the footnote. This should obviate all problems. -- Avi 19:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'd agree that some brief quotes are needed in the
circumcision article, but do we really need 14 mostly long paragraphs of quoted material? According to
WP:FU: "Inclusion of brief attributed quotations of copyrighted text, used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea is acceptable under fair use. Text must be used verbatim: any alterations must be clearly marked. ... In general, extensive quotation of copyrighted news materials (such as newspapers and wire services), movie scripts, or any other copyrighted text is not fair use and is prohibited by Wikipedia policy."
Jakew
19:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I merged the information, so I am now fine deleting this article. I do not feel that there should even be a redirect, as anyone looking for a policy will automatically go to Circumcision first. -- Avi 19:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep- looks well sourced. Astrotrain 21:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete follows a false premise, no country among those in the article has established any policy, merely (voluntary) associations of some doctors have. Perhaps one could imply policies by statements of certain governments that they are Islamic replubics or follow Islamic law, but that's not the gist of this article. Carlossuarez46 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, there are no laws as far as I know ordaining circumcision, only religious and popular believes. I believe that we need references to the theme but not in a form that suggests that national governments either ordain or encourage it AlfPhotoman 22:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - This article is absurd, since I know of no country which actually sets a policy regarding circumcision and the article (in spite of the title) does not show any national policies. Just a waste of bandwidth. Jeffpw 22:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The heading in Circumcision reads Policies of various national medical associations, not the countries themselves. -- Avi 22:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- that is precisely what we are talking about, the title is not ... in various ... but Circumcision policies of various countries , which is a false statement in itself
AlfPhotoman
23:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Which is why this article should be deleted and the section in
Circumcision remain
. --
Avi
23:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Which is why this article should be deleted and the section in
Circumcision remain
- that is precisely what we are talking about, the title is not ... in various ... but Circumcision policies of various countries , which is a false statement in itself
AlfPhotoman
23:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, of course, per WP:NOT. And I wish those saying things like "looks well sourced" would actually read the nomination and policy, and that those wishing it were a different article, like History of circumcision, would realize that those articles already exist. Jayjg (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- A bit hasty to suggest deletion. A retitle and cleanup is in order but it seems like a legitimate topic. Savidan 05:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Which is amply discussed in Circumcision#Policies of various national medical associations. The current article is a misnomer, since there reallt is no governmental policy on Circumcsion, with the possible exception of Sweden, and the article itself was actually a somewhat unilateral spin-off of Circumcision to begin with. -- Avi 06:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, Rename, or Merge a well-sourced article; but, let's stop mistaking AFD for WP:CLEANUP. Neier 07:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Already been merged. See Circumcision#Policies of various national medical associations. -- Avi 07:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-04 09:36Z
Gillis family
DELETE
- Not notable. Linked to Baronetcy which at first check appears fictional. Also linked to vanity page of not-notable person which will soon join afd.- Kittybrewster 01:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Non-notable and a one-liner. Seicer ( talk) ( contribs) 17:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and WP:WeDon'tNeedAnyVanityArticles AlfPhotoman 22:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - part of fictional biography project relating to the alleged Gillis Baronets. AlexTiefling 15:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
DELETED BY DOUCHBAGS.
- Whatever...this person was a candidate for elected office so it wasn't a vanity page. It was created so people could atleast have an idea of who this person was when they would look over the list of candidates for that particular office.
- 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Cathleen Vitale
County council members and rumored candidates for higher office do not meet notability criteria in WP:BIO - Mocko13 18:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Even a winner of the office would have questionable notability. -- Dhartung | Talk 18:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Lacks notability and sources. L uis 1972 (Talk • My Contribs) 18:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Seems like she would flunk WP:BIO, even if sourced. youngamerican ( ahoy hoy) 21:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete minor apparatchik. Wikipedia is not a repository of junior politicians' resumés. Ohconfucius 06:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Tip to nominator: Consider using the
proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! --
King of
♥
♦
♣
♠
20:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)- 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.
- regreatably, speedy delete as recreation of deleted material. Though I continue to maintain that he's a notable topic, recreating copy-pasted material that was previously deleted is not the way to change consensus. Wintermut3 04:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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. -- Luigi30 ( Taλk) 17:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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. No harm done; many of us have newly-discovered algebraic identities in our younger days. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-05 09:03Z
Andrei's Powered-Base Rule
- Andrei's Powered-Base Rule ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
This page consists entirely of original research. Additionally, it was created by the creator of the alleged "rule", which violates the autobiography portion of the conflict-of-interest rules. Finally, it's not notable; there are literally an infinite number of "rules" that can be derived from algebra and some basic mathematical first principles, and there's nothing special about this one. Sarcasticidealist 00:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - per the author's own admission, this is original research. Zetawoof( ζ) 01:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ditto. Loniousmonk 03:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Despite the presentation, I am sure that this result, in correct, has been discovered and proved long ago. However, didn't we develop some kind of note or template to new authors whose first contribution was proposed for deletion, to explain the rules to them rather than just make them feel unwelcome? That would certainly be appropriate here.
Newyorkbrad
03:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Response: Your suggestion to retain new users whose first contribution is AFD'd is a great one, and if no such note or template exists, somebody should design one. However, as to your comment about being sure that this "rule" has been discovered and proved long ago, it likely hasn't been just because nobody's bothered - the basic rules of mathematics are well understood, and finding new ways of making them interact with each other is generally just a waste of time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sarcasticidealist ( talk • contribs) 08:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
- There are e.g. Template:AFDWarning to inform an author about the AFD nomination of his article and Template:Firstarticle for new users referring to a first article nominated for any type fo deletion referring both to speedy deletion crtieria and WP:NOT. -- Tikiwont 14:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete It's true, but naming it after a high schooler who supposedly (no way of
verifying this) wrote it out for the first time is just silly. I remember discovering in grade school that , does anybody propose we call this Veinor's identity?
Veinor
(talk to me)
21:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Veinor's point is well-taken, but let's not belittle the article-creator, either. Brad's Theorem was that the last digit of the fifth power of any (base-ten) integer is the same as the last digit of the integer. :) It seemed like a good idea at the time, and I am sure that if there had been a Wikipedia then I would have posted it, and been on the wrong end of this discussion. Newyorkbrad 21:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 keep.
BuickCenturyDriver (
Honk,
contribs,
odometer)
09:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
List of places in Jerusalem
A category (particularly Category:Jerusalem) could handle the job this article is currently performing. -- tariqabjotu 01:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 10:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. From the looks of it, there are already relevant categories within Category:Jerusalem for this. -- Hemlock Martinis 02:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - this is one seriously confused list. I don't regard a hospital or hotel as a place, for example. There is no added value over categories. BlueValour 02:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Having a category is not a reason to delete a list. This list is subsorted into hotels, monuments, and other buildings, which the category doesn't do.
- List has no definition or criteria, which means that every structure and location, past and present, is elegible for inclusion. List adds not context to the content of the categories already in place. Delete -- saberwyn 02:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as a list made redundant by the presence of the category (which is subsorted into various headings and presumably can be further subsorted if need be). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree with Tariqabjotu that a category would do better, and lack of sources or inclusion criteria hampers mainatainability. -- Shirahadasha 03:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- KEEP I think the article could do better and should do better once a few more people who are interested in it interject more information. I say keep it. It seems worth the effort to me and could be a valuable tool for many people who run across it and hopefully expand it.. Artsojourner 05:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- more discussion Maybe it should merge with Jerusalem at some point in the future after it is fleshed out a bit.
Artsojourner
05:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It has five days' worth of discussion from the moment that Tariqabjotu nominated it. Responding to your suggestion of merging it with the article on Jerusalem - with all due respect, I think that's a fundamentally bad idea. Even fleshed out, this will still be a very long (unboundedly long, some might say) list, which is going to take up an awful lot of space in the Jerusalem article if someone puts it there. No other city article has a "list of places" attached, for reasons which I've always taken to be aesthetic as much as anything else. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Artsojourner: This list was originally created as a new article in May 2005 because the original Jerusalem article was getting too long [11]. Thanks, IZAK 12:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per the fact that there are other lists like this one eg List of places in London. Kyriakos 08:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. No reason to take this off WP. BuickCenturyDriver ( Honk, odometer) 08:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep because this is not simply an issue of "lists vs categories" (in any case, lists and categories serve different functions on Wikipedia and both are legitimate, see
Wikipedia:List guideline and
Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes) and it's an integral part of the
Jerusalem article and the {{
Jerusalem}} template on this list's page. This list was originally created as a new article in May 2005 because the original Jerusalem article was getting too long
[12]. Thus this list is part of an important integrated totality. To remove it, or even to move it around, would scar and harm BOTH the
Jerusalem article and the {{
Jerusalem}} template.
IZAK
10:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's neither an integral part of the
Jerusalem article nor an integral part of the {{
Jerusalem}} template. I don't believe the article is linked from the
Jerusalem article anywhere (except in the template) and it's only linked from the template because the article exists. Several of the links in the {{
Jerusalem}} template are links to categories that work perfectly fine. It is true that the page was forked from the
Jerusalem article due to its length, but that alone is not a reason to keep an article. --
tariqabjotu
13:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Tariqabjotu: I am not following your reasoning. If you admit that it's linked the to {{ Jerusalem}} template then it's linked to the Jerusalem article and yes the article exists (that's why you nominated it and that's why we are voting here) unless you nominated something that does not exist so then this vote should be cancelled ASAP, as we can't vote for things that do not exist. IZAK 13:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's neither an integral part of the
Jerusalem article nor an integral part of the {{
Jerusalem}} template. I don't believe the article is linked from the
Jerusalem article anywhere (except in the template) and it's only linked from the template because the article exists. Several of the links in the {{
Jerusalem}} template are links to categories that work perfectly fine. It is true that the page was forked from the
Jerusalem article due to its length, but that alone is not a reason to keep an article. --
tariqabjotu
13:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Might need work but no need to delete as it adds to the various existing pages mentioned above. Intinn Talk! 10:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Lists are redundant with categories if it is an unannotated list of bluelinks in alphabetical order. That is all a category can do. In this case we have a number of redlinks which probably should be made blue at some point. The list also sorts things by type of landmark, collecting all of it on one page, the category system needs to divide it into a series of subcategories to achieve the same. I'll agree that the list probably ought to have some more annotations to it, but this does not make the presence of the list unjustified. In its present form, the list does serve a purpose as a navigational aid, although I won't oppose converting the whole thing into a navigation box (template for use on all Jerusalem landmark articles) if annotations are not forthcoming. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a fair enough article, although in essence it is just a way of keeping a big list of the Jerusalem page, or a fork if you prefer. The Prince 11:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree 100% with
Tariqabjotu that a category would do better or instead merge it with the article about
Jerusalem because the way it is, does not seem very relevant and more like a
wikitravel list (where I think it would be more useful) --
JewBask
11:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- JewBask: This list was originally created as a new article in May 2005 because the original Jerusalem article was getting too long [13]. It is also an important part of the {{ Jerusalem}} template. IZAK 12:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep -- YoavD 12:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep-- yidi 13:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Unless every other list on WP is deleted, no argument was given as to why this is different than any other list on WP.-- Shmaltz 14:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I just skimmed the page, but it seems it might be valuable to someone. If Wikipedia ever implements an ontology system along the lines of Semantic MediaWiki, then it should be possible to auto-generate a list like this (which would then be preferred over manual generation, for many reasons), but until that functionality is available, it will be hard to duplicate this kind of list. So why not keep? — Dfass 14:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, I think it would be better to have a category Jerusalem and link to articles from there, not adding my keep or delete because on the one side I think having this is a good idea, but as a list one can fast loose overview AlfPhotoman 14:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Sjakkalle et al. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Lists and categories serve somewhat different though partially overlapping purposes. Any difficulties in maintaining a list are similar to the difficulties involved in maintaining the category; in fact, if you have one, it makes it fairly simple to maintain the other, and furthermore, if you have both, you are more likely to get a complete set including pages where somebody includes it in the list but doesn't categorize properly, or the other way around. Gzuckier 15:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep A list has the advantage of having each type of place broken down, while we could do that with subcategories that would result in a fair number of categories with few entries. Also, the redlinks are useful to know what doesn't have an article yet. JoshuaZ 16:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep For all the good reasons mentioned above, plus for someone planing to go to Jerusalem it will give him/her a complete picture of what is of interest; I already found some articles that I didn't know existed. I think every city needs to have such a page, not only London and Jerusalem; the servers can handle it. As to the work involved; that's what we're here for; almost seven billion of us. Itzse 16:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep as this is approaching
WP:LC.
dcandeto
16:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep This is really a confusing approach: good cities; some mess-ups.
bobbypirate123
Bobbypirate123
18:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Revise and edit, respectfully. bobbypirate123 Bobbypirate123 18:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep This is really a confusing approach: good cities; some mess-ups.
bobbypirate123
Bobbypirate123
18:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep A category does not group things together, and to leave it in the [Jerusalem] article would make it insufferably long. (PS. Why do people always seem to fall back on the strict laws of whatever manual-of-style is "in" on the given week only when it is in regard with someone else's religion or icons thereof? Ever wondered?)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cockneyite ( talk • contribs)
- strong keep per all the above (and delete the category for what its worth!) Jcuk 21:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep but... I would split this into two articles... one on " Neighborhoods of Jerusalem" and another on " List of buildings and structures in Jerusalem" The rationale is that Jerusalem is one of these ancient historical cities where there may be articles about very specific notable places. Also, I believe there is a wikipedia essay or policy on the difference between lists and categories and how both can be valuable in wikipedia if used correctly. MPS 23:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, Just like there are other articles on list of places for other city's. Shlomke 00:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Good use of grouping. Beginning of description of individual sites. Categories are not good for these. Fg2 01:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep needs expansion and elaboration, but lists and categories each have a place for organizing information. Alansohn 02:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep Other than with the category, the items which have not yet been initiated encourage the creative work of Wikipedians. The Jerusalem article is already very long and it is only natural that for such a large and for many also "central" city as Jerusalem that additional articles should evolve. gidonb 02:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep.
A category could handle the job of this list? So could a paper map. So what? Certain editors prefer using categories. Others prefer using lists. Why should one try to impose its preferences on the other? Also,the list meets WP:LIST by aiding navigation and aiding in the development of new articles. -- Black Falcon 03:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)- A category could handle the job of this list? So could a paper map. So what? I hope that was a joke; for obvious reasons a paper map is not possible. There are decent arguments out there for keeping this article, and so there is no need to resort to a comment like that. --
tariqabjotu
06:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please accept my apologies. It was an unwarranted comment and I have revised my argument so that it is more relevant to the issue at hand. -- Black Falcon 06:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- A category could handle the job of this list? So could a paper map. So what? I hope that was a joke; for obvious reasons a paper map is not possible. There are decent arguments out there for keeping this article, and so there is no need to resort to a comment like that. --
tariqabjotu
06:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - useful. Savidan 05:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Danny-w 15:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Of course we should keep it. If it is "confusing" then make it less confusing, don't delete it. Guy Montag 06:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep this lists vs categories issue has been discussed hundreds of times. It looks like each new wikipedian with particular dslike of some list has to drag us thru the same talk over and over again. `' mikka 19:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-05 10:26Z
TinyWarz
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
A webgame that doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB and doesn't contain information attributable to reliable sources. The three sources provided are a forum link, a weblog, and an unattributed review (I'm guessing user-submitted). search doesn't bring up reliable sources. Wafulz 03:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Wafulz's asessment of the sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Blue's News (a
reliable source) source is not to a message board link, Blue's News archives have a message-board like format. Game was awarded Most Innovative of 2006 by an independent game news site that is also a blog. Lastly, TinyWarz is a notable independent game that is significantly different that other wikipedia-listed browser based games, over half of which have no sources (
Evolution,
Pardus,
Planetarion,
Shartak ... etc.) see
wikipedia's list of browser-based games.
BlKat
- Blue's News doesn't actually have any information about TinyWarz, and I see no reason to separate this weblog from any of the hundreds of thousands of other weblogs out there. Those other games that you've mentioned could also be facing deletion soon (though they're not relevant to this discussion). Notability is not determined subjectively- it has to meet
WP:WEB. --
Wafulz
05:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'd disagree, Blue's News chose to recommend TinyWarz to their readership, that represents a notable achievement for an indie game - are you saying that if CNN were to provide a link to an unknown news site that simply read "Great News Here" that wouldn't be significant? Those other games are relevant to this discussion, TinyWarz was given 6 hours to demonstrate WP:WEB, the authors of those pages were given weeks, months, and even years to get them into shape (I don't want to pull out WP:BITE, but something seems seriously wrong with this). BlKat
- You have until this AFD is closed to bring the article up to standards. Furthermore,
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not an argument. Finally, one will notice that in the past day this site has recommend in an identical fashion no fewer than 4 games, all of which appear to be "indie", as it is put. As this site seems to be nothing but a link aggregator of stuff they think is "cool", I can't in good faith think that being linked to in such a fashion is at all notable. So, I'll say Delete, as well. --
Haemo
06:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- In fact, upon further searching, there appears to be something like 40-odd games recommended in this fashion, with no substantive comment, since the start of 2007. You can't seriously contend that satisfies WP:WEB. -- Haemo 06:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Also, you have a serious WP:COI commenting on this issue without disclosing that you're the primary contributor to the article in question, and then suggesting WP:BITE may apply here. -- Haemo 06:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Blue's News doesn't actually have any information about TinyWarz, and I see no reason to separate this weblog from any of the hundreds of thousands of other weblogs out there. Those other games that you've mentioned could also be facing deletion soon (though they're not relevant to this discussion). Notability is not determined subjectively- it has to meet
WP:WEB. --
Wafulz
05:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- So your main gripe about this article is the citation? I'm sorry but for a game of TinyWarz' size official recognition is few and far between. The author used what he/she could find, but the rest of the information is about the game itself. How is it possible to cite information if there is little outside information on the game to BEGIN with? Dr. Mordecai 18:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Did you just read what you wrote? What you just argued is that this site cannot meet guidelines under WP:WEB, but should be kept regardless. That's patently absurd. If you can't find reliable sources that show this game is notable, it should be deleted per standards under WP:NOTE. This isn't a popularity contest. -- Haemo 01:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Also, it seems to me that the "Blues News" citation is the problem. If that were to be removed, along with the "information" from it, would that alleviate your issues with the page?
- Comment: Well, no, since we are arguing about notability, and this the only evidence of notability provided. If you remove the link, there is no notability, and it should be deleted. -- Haemo 01:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I found this game originaly from that Blues News link. Blues news is a major link sight with comment. I even bought and wore out one of their T shirts. The Journalistic content of Blues News is their. I have seen Commenary and such that brought me back to that sight over and over, just to find out what Blues Dog had done now. I love Blues news and defenetly repect it as a great source of news and info. I really enjoyed the filter of links that he provides to both game and none game topics. There is so much on the internet that one can read, and the job of a good link sight is to tell or suggest to you what you might find interesting, and Blues News Does that for me in spades.
70.59.86.64
19:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Walterohdim
- Comment - how is this any sort of argument for notability? A link, without any comment, from a site that links to many, many sites in a similar fashion does not notability make. -- Haemo 01:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep As a newbee to Wikipedia, I have got a few question to the person who have proposed to delete this article.
- Do you really believe, that games are not a part of our (human) culture and civilization? If you think that several web based games are irrelevant here, why don't you propose to delete the football article? It is not web-based, but still a game.
- Do you really believe, that small things do not deserve placing here? Let's take an example of a small city of Zabrze in Poland. Do you really believe, that it should be deleted, only because the external links lead to something that was created by Poles, who are definitely not objective (like people from the Tiny Warz community), and so they are not reliable? Should we keep small, new things, especially if thay have something special (like TinyWarz 2D graphics interface)? I allways thought, Wikipedians want to be leaders, and not the followers. Or maybe I am too new here to understand the idea of Wikipedia?
- Having read what you have typed, I think that the most serious problem here is that the TinyWarz is not important enough, to deserve being placed in the Wikipedia. Am I right? That is true, TinyWars is a mere entertainment, and does not pretend to be something as important as the Vietnam War. But we do have articles about other games and sports, that are also not so important, don't we?
- One more thing: the same google query, as proposed by Wafulz, but with "-forum" modifier gives 80k hits. Moreover, it is more reasonable to expect some info about a game on website like pc.gamezone.com than at BBC, CNN or in the .edu and .gov domaines. In my opinion, in this case some .edu sites should be cosidered less reliable.
If you believe, that information is not documented enough, maybe you could place the same warning as for the Vietnam War? Rafkory 20:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment this is absurd. If you want to argue that the guidelines under WP:NOTE should not apply, then argue this on WP:NOTE, not here. Guidelines are not subjective, and, yes, non-notable things do not belong on Wikipeida. As a "newbie", perhaps you should review WP:NOTE and WP:NOT, since your suggestion violates both of these. The article on the Vietnam War is exceedingly well document, and the topic is notable. This article is not.
- In addition, subtracting forum means you're getting hits from their forums. It's absurd to claim that makes it notable in any way, shape or forum. -- Haemo 01:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Notability issues aside, there are still no
attributable reliable sources which actually present any sort of information. User-submitted information, minor blogs, and trivial/passing mentions are not substantial or
reliable. --
Wafulz
02:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you don't mind, please tell us which sections in those documents that relate to how this isn't wikipedia worthy.
- Well, right in the nutshell section: "All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source."
- "A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process, or with a poor reputation for fact-checking." -- Wafulz
- If you don't mind, please tell us which sections in those documents that relate to how this isn't wikipedia worthy.
- Reply - To elaborate, upon a cursory examination of the guidelines, there appear to be the following violations of
WP:WEB:
- The content itself has not been the subject of multiple and non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
- The website or content has not won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.
- The content is not distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.
- So, as we will note, it completely fails all notability requirements. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of the material on the page is not attributed to anyone - and certainly not to any reliable sources cited on the page, which in any case say next-to-nothing about the game in any case. -- Haemo 02:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reply - To elaborate, upon a cursory examination of the guidelines, there appear to be the following violations of
WP:WEB:
- Comment Updated sourcing and game type -
massively multiplayer turn-based strategy, which makes TinyWarz unique. Again, this article was nominated for deletion six hours after it was created, this delete seems a little over-zealous. Article now has more sources than most
browser-based games on wikipedia (most of which have none), applying deleter's arguments: shouldn't most articles about browser-based games on wikipedia be up for deletion as well?
BlKat
- Yes, they probably will be deleted once I have the time to research/nominate them. However, the source provided is just a reprinted press release- it was submitted by some random. I could also submit news via the "Submit news" option just below it. It also hasn't "created" a new genre if nothing about that genre has been mentioned yet (though most mentions of this "genre" point to a game called
Evernight, which is also of dubious standing). --
Wafulz
03:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- ... "could also be facing deletion", "probably will be deleted" - can you be any more transparent? You don't intend to delete those articles or nominate them for lack of
WP:WEB (you've had years to it). This one is an easy target, it's still being built; so you can flex your wiki-muscle by going after it. I was really looking forward to joining the wikipedia community, but after this demonstration I think I'll be staying away. I'm not going to join a community that works so hard to destroy the work of others.
BlKat
- I'm not flexing "wikimuscle" at all- I've had articles deleted/nominated for deletion here too. I'm a student, so I have a weird, and often crowded schedule, which means I can't just make a dozen nominations at once. We're all new at some point, and we don't always know how things go around here. If you want some examples of "more established" articles I've nominated for deletion, then here you go: (they're all of the same variety as this one)
- ... "could also be facing deletion", "probably will be deleted" - can you be any more transparent? You don't intend to delete those articles or nominate them for lack of
WP:WEB (you've had years to it). This one is an easy target, it's still being built; so you can flex your wiki-muscle by going after it. I was really looking forward to joining the wikipedia community, but after this demonstration I think I'll be staying away. I'm not going to join a community that works so hard to destroy the work of others.
BlKat
- Yes, they probably will be deleted once I have the time to research/nominate them. However, the source provided is just a reprinted press release- it was submitted by some random. I could also submit news via the "Submit news" option just below it. It also hasn't "created" a new genre if nothing about that genre has been mentioned yet (though most mentions of this "genre" point to a game called
Evernight, which is also of dubious standing). --
Wafulz
03:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, not all material is suited for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I don't intend to make you feel victimized. -- Wafulz 04:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- KEEP You didn't give this time enough to get into code.
Whistles384
04:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)whistles384
- I'm not sure what you mean by the code comment. Also, you just need the four tildes- you don't have to type your name out. -- Wafulz 04:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- What I meant was that you didn't even give it enough to get up to the guidelines. You just randomly found this conveniently after 6 hours of it posting and decided to delete it without being conscientious of the little newbie guidelines that BlKat stated up there.
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 04:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - you have until this AFD closes to bring it up to standards. If this topic really is notable, then you should have no problems doing that. If you can bring it up to standards, I would gladly rescind my objections to inclusion. As it stands, you have not made any serious progress towards doing this, and my objections stand. I also seriously object to any accusation of WP:BITE - enforcing Wikipedia's guidelines in a civil and forthright manner is not "biting" anyone, and I find it tests the boundaries of my good will to be repeatedly accused of it in this discussion. -- Haemo 05:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, lack of credible citations is listed as a problem which "may not require deletion" in the
Deletion_policy. Furthermore, the policy states that for deletion, the article must clearly violate the notability requirement. Tinywarz was cited by a popular game news website, and has over 30,000 external references (from google), so it's not clearly non-notable. In fact, looking at the pages that were
deleted for being "not notable", it seems this reason is used exclusively for entries which have no external references at all. The two obscure web-games brought up earlier also had
deletion
discussions over notability, and both were kept. --
yaroslavvb
- From the deletion policy: Articles and text which are capable of meeting these should usually be remedied by editing, but content which fails inclusion criteria for Wikipedia, is incapable of verification with reputable sources, or is in breach of copyright policy, is usually deleted. Those other articles, while not relevant to this discussion, should really be renominated (they defaulted to a "keep" because of lack of substantial discussion). --
Wafulz
04:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Again, we have specifically addressed this argument. This article does not meet standards under WP:NOTE, and therefore does not qualify for inclusion. The fact that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on this - especially when the keep was procedural! None of the sources assert, or support notability for this game, and, frankly, you aren't even arguing they do. Instead, you have decided that we should just ignore policy because, apparently, WP:ILIKEIT. This is not a compelling argument, and I strongly urge you to read up on the guidelines under WP:NOTE and WP:WEB before making arguments that run directly contrary to Wikipedia policy. -- Haemo
- From the deletion policy: Articles and text which are capable of meeting these should usually be remedied by editing, but content which fails inclusion criteria for Wikipedia, is incapable of verification with reputable sources, or is in breach of copyright policy, is usually deleted. Those other articles, while not relevant to this discussion, should really be renominated (they defaulted to a "keep" because of lack of substantial discussion). --
Wafulz
04:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- REPLY Is there a problem with having information in an encyclopedia? Why are you (you being the collective group of "editors") attacking internet games, vying for their deletion? Allowing SOME information in and deleting others based on arbitrary, albeit confusing rules seems to be more of a restriction of information. How are we supposed to fix the page when it's doomed from the get-go? Is there anything you could suggest that would be HELPFUL and not as negative as deleting it?
Dr. Mordecai
04:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- The rules are not arbitrary- Wikipedia cannot be a primary source. Only attributable information is allowed to be used. While this page might be "doomed from the get go", there are tons of other articles that need work. Check out Wikipedia:Community Portal/Opentask for a good place to start. -- Wafulz 04:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Echoing this, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. No one is attacking anything, and the rules are neither confusing nor arbitrary. To repeat, notability is not an arbitrary, nor a subjective attribute of topic. Either bring the article up to standards, or it will be deleted. -- Haemo 05:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break
- I would like to note that NO ONE has asked any of us to say anything here. We do this because we want to
Whistles384
04:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's mostly precautionary in this case. -- Wafulz 04:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I will assume
good faith that this is true, but it is frankly more than a little suspicious to see a large number of brand-new contributors all appear, and make edits solely to an
WP:AFD discussion, with apparent little to no regard, or understanding, of established Wikipedia policy. --
Haemo
05:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- We don't need understand of the wiki policy to argue for something we want to stay put.
Whistles384
05:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I think this just about summarizes the entire debate right here. You don't understand Wikipedia policy, or it's guidelines - but frankly, you couldn't care less, because WP:ILIKEIT. That's not an argument! That's patently the most ridiculous thing I have encountered, and a singularly offensive attitude to anyone who cares about this project. This is not a popularity contest. Your personal like or dislike has no bearing on this, and I strongly urge you to strike out all your comments if this is the rationale you have behind your argument. This is not a vote, and outright denials of Wikipedia policy totally abuse this process and degrade the Encyclopedia as a whole. -- Haemo 05:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- We don't need understand of the wiki policy to argue for something we want to stay put.
Whistles384
05:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- OK, For one thing, I'd like to know. Other than DrMordecai and Whistlese, have any of you people played the game? If you had, you'd know that there are MANY reliable sources in the game, for the game! Jesus, by your warped logic, all the articles on online games lack "reliable sources" - except for all the commercial games. Does anyone here in your so called "Editor's Circle" have anything useful to say to help us? How can we improve the TW page? Because, to me, it seems like all you're doing is slinging poo all over the place. --
LordRex
16:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Find game reviews from reliable sources. Most often, online games are kept because they have had a full-length review printed in a widely syndicated gaming magazine. If you can't find one of those, try and find full-length reviews from websites that don't contain user-submitted reviews/recommendations/etc. Articles in major newspapers too. The only catch with all this is that the articles must have more than a passing mention (ie, more than a short blurb). Reliable sources have some sort of editorial oversight and credibility to them; Wikipedia articles are only as credible as their sources- if the sources aren't credible, then the information isn't credible, meaning it should be removed. -- Wafulz 05:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Independent review added! Does that improve our standings? --
Jester
- Again, this is an archive of a random weblog. See above with regards to editorial oversight. -- Wafulz 05:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- In fact, it looks like this website is a conglomeration of friends posting on a shared weblog. The fact that "LOL" appears 7 times on the first page alone isn't comforting. -- Wafulz 05:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Again, I must ask that editors read the standards under WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOTE, and WP:WEB. This does not satisfy those, for obvious reasons. -- Haemo
- Wafulz, in regard to the use of "LOL" here is the introduction to the staff page:
"The distinguished staff of TIGSource are a varied lot, culled from all over cyberspace to bring you all your indie gaming news, all the time.
Want to join the elite ranks of volunteers? Just pop me an e-mail telling me why you're fit to be a TIGSource editor. Probably the easiest way to get accepted to TIGSource is to have good writing skills - just because we're casual and fun doesn't mean that we type like monkeys! The second is enthusiasm. You gotta love indie games. Both should be reflected in your e-mail, so don't slouch!"
They may not be proffessional but they are an independent source and quite numerous. The main fact we're trying to get across is that this game does not have major recognition but does have unbaised reviews from external sources. Provided this page continues to exist we will continue updating and trying to gain more "appropriate" reviews for more distinguished sources. But you must understand that if you kill this site from the start than we'll barely have the chance to do so. Also Haemo, "obvious reasons" isn't a phrase I particularly like, these guides are very wordy and difficult to translate into real english. If you would care to properly articulate why this latest reference is unworthy, it would be appreciated. -- Jester
- Well, from your excerpt: "Want to join the elite ranks of volunteers? Just pop me an e-mail telling me why you're fit to be a TIGSource editor. Probably the easiest way to get accepted to TIGSource is to have good writing skills." Basically, anyone can become a "game reviewer" for the site provided they write well (which is really subjective judging from the entries). These people don't even have to be well-versed in anything online, let alone in games, which speaks piles about their credibility. It's the same as picking up someone off the street and asking them their opinion of the game.
- I've done a pretty exhaustive search for good sources, and it doesn't look like the article has a chance of surviving. If you'd like, an administrator can have a copy of the article moved to your user page (or someone else's), sort of "housing" it until better sources (assuming they exist) come up sometime in the future. This is probably the best solution available right now- it won't have an article, but all the work on won't be lost. --
Wafulz
06:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Wafluz, you said "Basically, anyone can become a "game reviewer" for the site provided they write well (which is really subjective judging from the entries)". What other skills are necessary to write articles for Wikipedia? Sorry, but your argument does not convince me. On the other, I would like to thank you for the helpful hint.
- Wafluz, so, exactly what does TW lack in comparison to Earth 2025? Maybe instead of harping on about what's wrong, maybe you can offer your unique brand of insight on what we can do to make the TW page more interesting and more "up to standard". And maybe, just maybe, you can play the game for yourself and make an informed opinion on it. --
LordRex
17:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I could become a writer for that website. I could make a post going "Hey I heard about this game TinyWarz. It's really lousy and awful, avoid it at all costs." I don't even have to prove that I've played it, and yet by that site's standards I could write whatever I feel like. Anyone can write for it- it's not a good source, and that should be pretty clear. Earth 2025 has won two Webby Awards, which clearly meets WP:WEB, and has had multiple reviews (though only one is cited, I'll admit). These reviews are not user-submitted, and they actually have names attached to them too. Its publisher has also been named as a featured publisher by Right Media. I'm not here to make a judgement call on TinyWarz- I'm here to decide if there are reliable sources for the subject, of which there appear to be none. -- Wafulz 13:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - first of all, stop with the personal attacks. They're totally unproductive, and contrary to Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, we have clearly outlined what needs to be done - find reliable sources that assert, and support, notability for this game. None have been produced, so this article, by Wikipedia's own guidelines, should be deleted. Furthermore, read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS before repeating this same argument. If you think Earth 2025 should be deleted, then nominate; don't try to get this article kept because another article does not meet standards either. -- Haemo 07:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wafluz, so, exactly what does TW lack in comparison to Earth 2025? Maybe instead of harping on about what's wrong, maybe you can offer your unique brand of insight on what we can do to make the TW page more interesting and more "up to standard". And maybe, just maybe, you can play the game for yourself and make an informed opinion on it. --
LordRex
17:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Mentioning entries like
Shartak and
Planetarion has to do with precedent, rather than "
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS". Similar discussion over deletion was initiated over two entries with similar problems as this one, and the editor decision was to keep. --
yaroslavvb
- I could bring up precedent which led to deletion too. It's not relevant if it doesn't even meet policy. --
Wafulz
13:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Precedent is relevant because it saves time on discussion that has taken place already. Similar arguments were brought up for
Shartak and
Planetarion and were not found sufficient, so the question is -- if they didn't work there, why would they work here? I believe you are trying to apply
WP:WEB too strictly. Looking at the first several dozen deletions due to
WP:WEB in deletions log, they seem to be used for entries with no external references at all, not the case here. --
yaroslavvb
- Neither of them really discussed
WP:RS or
WP:ATT (which are thresholds of inclusion). Most of it was spent bickering about "this number is big", which is not at all the main point in my nomination. --
Wafulz
00:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- If the problem is not notability, but lack of sources, why not use the
Unreferenced tag, and give Wikipedia community time to find some sources? After all, this entry is fairly new. For instance, that's what editors decided to do for
Dark_throne which also lacked sources at the time of AfD
nomination.--
yaroslavvb
- This is a five day process. If sources can't be found in five days, then they likely won't be found at all. --
Wafulz
15:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Five days is too short. Another entry I contributed to (
Morphological_image_processing) took several months before even one external source was found. In fact, I'm willing to bet that if you take wikipedia entries at random, most of them started as unreferenced descriptions, and had references added weeks or even months later. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Yaroslavvb (
talk •
contribs)
17:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
- Well internet articles tend to have internet sources. If they exist, and if any are found, I'm sure they can be mentioned on this article's new home on the Tinywarz wiki- there's no need to keep unsourced material here just for the sake of keeping it just in case some sources exist. --
Wafulz
00:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- The reason to keep unsourced material is because it was just added, and the wikipedia community hasn't had enough time to add sources. The argument here seems to be that the if the Wikipedia community doesn't find sources within 5 days, the entry must be deleted. That is against the spirit of Wikipedia, and you can find many entries for which the sources were added weeks or months after the entry's creation. Similar discussion took place over deletion of Dark Throne entry and the decision was to keep the article with "Unreferenced" template -- yaroslavvb
- Furthermore, why would any editor produce an article in good faith that they knew did not meet standards? That violates not only Wikipedia policies, but the principle of the Encyclopedia itself. A hypothetical future source, which no one can find or produce, does not notability make. --02:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Editors are not paid, and you can't expect all the editors to always reference their information, that's why they put it on wiki where other people can add references. As far as notability, I think you are trying to apply it too strictly. I gave two examples which are very similar to tinywarz (in a sense that google doesn't give reliable sources) and for which discussion over notability led to a negative (
Shartak and
Planetarion). If you look at the list of recent deletions over notability, you'll see that it's used almost exclusively to delete one/two paragraph entries with people writing about themselves, or things that can't be found on google at all. --
yaroslavvb
- If you look at the list of recent deletions over notability, you'll see that it's used almost exclusively to delete one/two paragraph entries with people writing about themselves, or things that can't be found on google at all. I don't know where you're getting this from- while it is sometime the case, it's certainly not exclusive. Material must be
attributable from the get go. There's no way around this. --
Wafulz
16:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that it must be attributable, but just don't agree that five days is long enough for wikipedia community to find proper attribution. Five days is too short to delete it for lack of sources, number of internet references to tinywarz and people interested in this topic is too large to delete it for lack notability. --
Yaroslavvb
- I'm not sure of your logic here. You seem to be claiming that the 'number of internet references' and number of 'people interested' is 'too large', yet say you (or someone else) can't find a couple of
reliable sources when you're given five days.
Nuttah68
19:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's pretty typical of Wikipedia though. I'm willing to bet that most entries in wikipedia existed without any references for the first couple of weeks (just look at History for some random pages), and had references added later. You can't expect the original the first 1 or 2 editors to fill out all required information, that's the whole point of having the Wikipedia community to fall back on. All I'm saying is that we should tag the page with "Unreferenced" template as and give some time for the wikipedia community to fill in the sources (a month maybe?). -- Yaroslavvb
- I'm not sure of your logic here. You seem to be claiming that the 'number of internet references' and number of 'people interested' is 'too large', yet say you (or someone else) can't find a couple of
reliable sources when you're given five days.
Nuttah68
19:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that it must be attributable, but just don't agree that five days is long enough for wikipedia community to find proper attribution. Five days is too short to delete it for lack of sources, number of internet references to tinywarz and people interested in this topic is too large to delete it for lack notability. --
Yaroslavvb
- If you look at the list of recent deletions over notability, you'll see that it's used almost exclusively to delete one/two paragraph entries with people writing about themselves, or things that can't be found on google at all. I don't know where you're getting this from- while it is sometime the case, it's certainly not exclusive. Material must be
attributable from the get go. There's no way around this. --
Wafulz
16:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Editors are not paid, and you can't expect all the editors to always reference their information, that's why they put it on wiki where other people can add references. As far as notability, I think you are trying to apply it too strictly. I gave two examples which are very similar to tinywarz (in a sense that google doesn't give reliable sources) and for which discussion over notability led to a negative (
Shartak and
Planetarion). If you look at the list of recent deletions over notability, you'll see that it's used almost exclusively to delete one/two paragraph entries with people writing about themselves, or things that can't be found on google at all. --
yaroslavvb
- Well internet articles tend to have internet sources. If they exist, and if any are found, I'm sure they can be mentioned on this article's new home on the Tinywarz wiki- there's no need to keep unsourced material here just for the sake of keeping it just in case some sources exist. --
Wafulz
00:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Five days is too short. Another entry I contributed to (
Morphological_image_processing) took several months before even one external source was found. In fact, I'm willing to bet that if you take wikipedia entries at random, most of them started as unreferenced descriptions, and had references added weeks or even months later. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Yaroslavvb (
talk •
contribs)
17:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
- This is a five day process. If sources can't be found in five days, then they likely won't be found at all. --
Wafulz
15:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- If the problem is not notability, but lack of sources, why not use the
Unreferenced tag, and give Wikipedia community time to find some sources? After all, this entry is fairly new. For instance, that's what editors decided to do for
Dark_throne which also lacked sources at the time of AfD
nomination.--
yaroslavvb
- Neither of them really discussed
WP:RS or
WP:ATT (which are thresholds of inclusion). Most of it was spent bickering about "this number is big", which is not at all the main point in my nomination. --
Wafulz
00:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Precedent is relevant because it saves time on discussion that has taken place already. Similar arguments were brought up for
Shartak and
Planetarion and were not found sufficient, so the question is -- if they didn't work there, why would they work here? I believe you are trying to apply
WP:WEB too strictly. Looking at the first several dozen deletions due to
WP:WEB in deletions log, they seem to be used for entries with no external references at all, not the case here. --
yaroslavvb
- I could bring up precedent which led to deletion too. It's not relevant if it doesn't even meet policy. --
Wafulz
13:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It seams to me, that the problem editors are trying to point out, is the lack of the notoriety that is confirmed by independent sources, that are reliable from the editors point of view. In such cases, there are two solutions proposed: either to delete, or to merge with the article, that stisfies the criterion of notoriety. The same was propsed for the Saint Monica's Church, Barre: "Merge into Barre, Vermont." Do the editors believe, that the article about the web games satisfy the standards? If so, we might just propse to move TW to that article, until the right sources are found.
- Telling the true, due to the nature of the web games (all of them) they need a lot of time to become known to so called "general public", unless they have a big company supporting it, that is able to spend money on PR. If I may use the analogy, the same sittuation is with the SF books in Poland. Books published in big number of copies are not either mentioned by the "mainstream" magazines, that are sponsored by the Ministery of Culture, as there are not "serious" enough. Using this criterion, you would not be allowed to place any SF authors in Polish Wikipedia but Isaac Assimov, Philip K. Dick, Stanisław Lem and Mikhail Bulgakov and authors, whose books were used for making a movie picture. For all the other authors, the sources that exist are linked to SF community, and not the official 'literature' organisations, i.e. they do not satisfy the independence criterion .
Rafkory 11:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not having native-language sources is not the same as having zero sources. I nominated the game Popomundo a while back, but withdrew my nomination once it was revealed that there were sources in Spanish. -- Wafulz 13:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Sources seem to be blogs and sites that have no established reputation for fact checking. Arguments for keep seem to be WP:ILIKEIT. — Ocatecir Talk 11:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Nowehere near notable enough for a web game as far as I'm concerned, sources are in no way reliable, only arguement for keeping appears to be
WP:ILIKEIT and self-promotional reasons, and the article is riddled with game guidey and how-to-play information, which violates
WP:NOT.
The Kinslayer
11:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Despite many polite requests the article still has no
reliable sources to support the notability claimed.
Nuttah68
13:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I don't see any reliable sources. Has it been written about in any magazines or newspapers, for instance? I couldn't find any on LexisNexis. — brighterorange ( talk) 14:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment this oddly feels like a continuation or expansion of the recent slate of afd's for various webcomics. if that is deliberate or accidental is a completely different debate. however, from what i have been able to glean from those debates, the afd should be the _second step_ after a request for sources hasn't been met. but, somebody will probably say if such is formal policy or just basic politeness. so base question, was that formal request for sources even made, or did somebody just light the primer cord on the article without even making the cursory attempt to start the process to fix it. 70.51.53.37 14:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC) steuben (fixing my spelling)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=TinyWarz&oldid=110529681 As this diff shows, the prod clearly states where the article was failing, and the removal of the prod by an editor is tantamount to acknowledgement of the articles failings. Following the failure to actually address these isssues, the deletion process was moved to an AfD. So yes, a chance was given for the article to be fixed, but it was squandered. The Kinslayer 14:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would like to know how a game is to be reviewed without someone actually playing it. Whistles384 16:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's not an issue for wikipedia.
The Kinslayer
16:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Echoing this, you seem to have maintained the belief throughout this whole AFD that this is process is somehow a "review" of the game. It's not. We're not reviewing the game - we're evaluating whether or not it should included in this Encyclopedia. Since it does not meet minimum standards under
WP:WEB, it should not be included. --
Haemo
16:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's not what I mean. You guys say that there needs to be a source that is reputable and can't have anyone's opinion of the game in the reviews. How can the game be reviewed without someone actually playing it first? That's how all reviews are done. Whistles384 17:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Echoing this, you seem to have maintained the belief throughout this whole AFD that this is process is somehow a "review" of the game. It's not. We're not reviewing the game - we're evaluating whether or not it should included in this Encyclopedia. Since it does not meet minimum standards under
WP:WEB, it should not be included. --
Haemo
16:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's not an issue for wikipedia.
The Kinslayer
16:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment WP:WEB is an invalid arguement in this case. tinywarz is a game not a website. it is a game that happens to played through <insert browser here>. if tinywarz was played through a downloaded and separate client then the WP:WEB arguement would not apply. so by extenstion neither does the WP:WEB here. unless Wafulz would like to expand on reasons for including the wp:web argument. 70.51.53.37 16:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)steuben
- You answered your own question.
WP:WEB applies because you don't download anything to play. You said so yourself, you have to launch a web browser, go to the web site and play the game whilst surfing the web. There is no 'by extension',
WP:WEB applies to web sites, and this game is played through a web site. Or to put it another way, the website is the game and the game is the website. Very simple, no big leap of logic needed. Looking at your argument, what you have essentially said is:
WP:WEB doesn't apply because you play the game through a web site. If you had to download anything, then
WP:WEB would indeed not apply. It is then covered by
WP:SOFTWARE and this article would STILL be here in an AfD.
The Kinslayer
16:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I disagree with such an argument for basically the same reasons. First of all, WP:WEB does apply, as per Kinslayer's argument. Moreover, even if it did not the reason for deletion is per WP:NOTE and WP:ATT, which WP:WEB is a subset of - thus, a simple reductio argument shows that deletion is the proper standard in either respect. -- Haemo 16:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I would also just like to comment that, despite assertions to the contrary, this AFD has been linked to from the TinyWarz wiki http://wiki.mobrulestudios.com/index.php?title=Main_Page by a developer. So, I would suggest tagging SPA's as they arise. On the plus side, the TinyWarz page has apparently also been TransWiki'd to their personal Wiki, so we can avoid having to do that. -- Haemo 16:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 all. - Mailer Diablo 15:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
List of Mario Party 3 minigames
- And also List of Mario Party 4 minigames, List of Mario Party 5 minigames, List of Mario Party 6 minigames, List of Mario Party 7 minigames, List of Mario Party 8 minigames
- Previous nomination, which was withdrawn, can be found here.
Trivia. Not encyclopedic. Unsourced. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. No actual improvement since previous AFD. >Radiant< 08:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: there is an emerging AfD standard for such articles. See recently closed List of Mario Party minigames at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party minigames and List of Mario Party Advance minigames at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party Advance minigames. All these "List of Mario Party * minigames" are of comparable quality, so AfD decisions should be portable. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 08:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: The List of Mario Party minigames decision was entirely opinionated. Bowsy ( review me!) 17:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 08:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete this belongs on GameFAQs or somewhere, not in an encyclopaedia. Guy ( Help!) 09:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep or merge to main articles: Not trivia, I will source it very soon, this isn't an unencyclopedic list, passes WP:NOT as it isn't game guide material, the list just goes on ..... Henchman 2000 10:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- As these articles are linked to a major CvG sereis, a merge would also be appropriate. Henchman 2000 18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Merge them all into a Table of Mario Party games. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - A prose section in the main article using a combination of secondary sources and the primary source is more appropriate an encyclopedia-like. As it is, this is not useful for people who already know about the games and not useful for people who don't. This is fairly analogous to a plot summary and I believe the reasoning behind articles not being plot summaries is applicable to this as well. No improvement since at last AFD too. Wickethewok 14:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC
- Wikiproject:Nintendo's aims, is to provide a comprehensive and detailed guide to Nintendo, which is what this list does.
Henchman 2000
18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Also, how are these lists not useful for people who don't know the minigames? Henchman 2000 08:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all. A clear case of Wikipedia is not a game guide, as the other recent Mario Party AfDs have shown. Krimpet ( talk/ review) 14:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per precedent of the other Mario Party AfD's. I will reiterate my previous opinion that these are essentially unsourced game FAQs and do not warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. Arkyan • (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you look, you will find that only the LMP3mgs is unsourced, so WP:ATT is no reason for deletion. Henchman 2000 18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all, not acceptable encyclopedia content per WP:NOT. In addition to that, the "articles" are unsourced, thereby failing WP:ATT. Picaroon 17:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- See comment above. Henchman 2000 18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep: In no way is this trivia. Mario Party is about minigames over anything else. Bowsy ( review me!) 17:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all per WP:NOT. One Night In Hackney 303 17:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- THis doesn't fail
WP:NOT, also, you must show why you think it *can't* pass WP:NOT.
Henchman 2000
18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- On the contrary, one could interpret this as failing either
WP:NOT#DIR and/or
WP:NOT#INFO. Note that there are no hard and fast definition of NOT given, just examples and a rough definition. The purpose then of the AfD debate is to establish consensus as to whether an article passes guidelines - if a user feels that it violates
WP:NOT there is nothing in the guidelines or policy that says the user must show why the article cannot pass inclusion criteria.
Arkyan •
(talk)
18:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you want a strong argument, then yes, you must. Henchman 2000 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- On the contrary, one could interpret this as failing either
WP:NOT#DIR and/or
WP:NOT#INFO. Note that there are no hard and fast definition of NOT given, just examples and a rough definition. The purpose then of the AfD debate is to establish consensus as to whether an article passes guidelines - if a user feels that it violates
WP:NOT there is nothing in the guidelines or policy that says the user must show why the article cannot pass inclusion criteria.
Arkyan •
(talk)
18:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Mini-game lists lack any merit and fail WP:NOT for being game guides. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- And how do they do that? Henchman 2000 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all Fails WP:NOT and for the most part [[WP:ATT]. Listcruft. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Cruft is no valid reason for deletion, and look carefully at almost every comment on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fancruft, there you will find that any delete vote of "cruft" of any description should be discounted and there is a consensus for this. Henchman 2000 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all per nomination. It's game guide content that is better suited for a gaming wiki. No list page for all of them is needed at Wikipedia either. RobJ1981 20:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all. WP:NOT#IINFO seems very relevant here as noted by Radiant, Wikthewok, et al. The WP:ATT issue is subsidiary to this as better sourcing would not fix the core problem. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all. These can never expand beyond basic gameplay descriptions or game guide material. I recommended redirecting at some of the other discussions, but upon further reflection that is not the best idea. --- RockMFR 20:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete All per all possible arguments. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 22:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, per other debates. Axem Titanium 22:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all. Yes, I know in the past I've said I'd prefer to keep these lists. However, I have changed my mind there, seeing that this is unsourced and fails
WP:NOT#INFO, as the nom stated. My main concern with these lists is: How are they encyclopedic? "Mario Party is more about minigames than anything else." Sure. But how does a list of them benfit the encylopedia? From
List of Mario Party 3 minigames: "Eye Sore- Circle around a Mr. I to shrink it away. Avoid Podoboos." Is that somehow not game guide material? Every other MP minigame list has this problem as well, except that they have a more encylopedic tone. —
Malcolm
Use
the
schwartz!
23:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- These articles are sourced.
Henchman 2000
17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- They don't directly source the minigames in question. Also, please remember formatting here, with asterisks (*). — Malcolm Use the schwartz! 19:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- These articles are sourced.
Henchman 2000
17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all In what situation would this be of use to a user of an encyclopedia? That is how I read most of the WP:NOT guidelines. Slavlin 02:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- THis benefits those that are looking for precise information, and an encyclopedia is supposed to give precise information, isn't it? And this is not indiscriminate as it is linked to a notable sereis. Henchman 2000 18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
If these articles cannot be kept, put them on my userspace Henchman 2000 17:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest you download them onto your hard drive if you want to keep them, we are not a web hosting service. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Other users are allowed to put deleted articles on their userspace, so why shouldn't I?
Henchman 2000
18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Because the only purpose would be to recreate or to rehaul it, and neither would fly. People save content to improve the article over time (often to solve problems people have with the AfD). -
A Link to the Past
(talk)
00:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- If they were put into my userspace, I would give them a massive cleanup and hopefully solve these problems and make them acceptable for all, I would want to show these articles to editors like yourself so that you could advise me on how to improve them further, or tell me if you thought they were acceptable. That would fly. 14:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- I would be really impressed if you managed to make the article both quality and not violations of
WP:ATT and
WP:NOT, considering doing so would entail destroying the article. -
A Link to the Past
(talk)
19:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- I will manage to make it pass these articles and it won't destroy the articles, in fact, you could help if you wanted to. Henchman 2000 07:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- I would be really impressed if you managed to make the article both quality and not violations of
WP:ATT and
WP:NOT, considering doing so would entail destroying the article. -
A Link to the Past
(talk)
19:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- If they were put into my userspace, I would give them a massive cleanup and hopefully solve these problems and make them acceptable for all, I would want to show these articles to editors like yourself so that you could advise me on how to improve them further, or tell me if you thought they were acceptable. That would fly. 14:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Because the only purpose would be to recreate or to rehaul it, and neither would fly. People save content to improve the article over time (often to solve problems people have with the AfD). -
A Link to the Past
(talk)
00:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Other users are allowed to put deleted articles on their userspace, so why shouldn't I?
Henchman 2000
18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Merge. I think one page with a table of all the Mario Party mini-games from all the games should be kept. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Useight ( talk • contribs).
- Merge all related articles into one A game guide explains how to play the game in detail, this isn't a game guide. Also not indiscriminate as they are clearly linked together by a notable game. If not merged into an article or list of its own, these could be cut down and merged into the game articles. At the very least there's some salvageable content in here.
Mgm|
(talk)
10:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- No. Notability is not defined by being associated with a notable thing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Merge. One massive list of Mario Party games is better than 7+.
MrMacMan
22:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Better, yes. Good enough, no. -
A Link to the Past
(talk)
04:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please don't imply that your opinion is somehow better than mine since you didn't actually rebut my point with an actual policy or guideline. MrMacMan 08:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- How about one violation of WP:ATT and WP:NOT is better than seven, but still not within our inclusion policy? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Better, yes. Good enough, no. -
A Link to the Past
(talk)
04:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- WP:NOT an INDISCRIMINATE collection of info but this isn't indiscriminate as it is on a notable subject. f it was random crap I could understandbut it's not. Also, they are NOT GAME GUIDES because a game3 guide gives THROUGH instructions with hints and tips. Oh, and the articles ARE sourced. Have you seen the "References" section yet? Bowsy ( review me!) 10:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete the lot of them.
WP:NOT a game guide works well here, as well as no claim whatsoever to any sort of notability. Game guides would be a trivial work here. Remember the standard is that it has to have been the subject of multiple non-trivial works before it can be considered notable. -
M
ask
20:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand, can you please simplify what you're saying about notability and why these articles don't qualify. Henchman 2000 07:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete All The Mario Party series of games are indeed notable, but the individual games within Mario Party certainly are NOT. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 14:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 merge to Circumcision. I think, since content was merged back, we may need this around for GFDL purposes. Consensus favors deletion. Mango juice talk 18:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Circumcision policies of various countries
- Circumcision policies of various countries ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
Article consists almost entirely of quotes from source material. Per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, Wikipedia should not contain "Mere collections of ... other source material." Jakew 11:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Haven taken "Human Sexuality" in college we covered this topic at great length, so I understand its importance. Some countries do not allow for circumcision, while in some countries "female" circumsion (female genital infibulation) is almost required at a certain age. The article needs should be rewritten to cover this history of these policies and their origins and their modern days practices. -- Ozgod 12:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep' Provided changes mentioned by Ozgod are made. Circumcision is a worthy subject, maybe revert it and stub it. Intinn Talk! 13:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - In addition to the concerns raised by the nominator, the article is apparently based on a false premise. I am unaware that circumcision policy is formulated at the national level and the article does not support the notion that it is. Otto4711 14:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
* Merge back into
Circumcision. It was unilaterally spun off anyway. Put it back where it belongs.
Avi
18:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per above.
Nomen Nescio
Gnothi seauton
18:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'd agree that some brief quotes are needed in the
circumcision article, but do we really need 14 mostly long paragraphs of quoted material? According to
WP:FU: "Inclusion of brief attributed quotations of copyrighted text, used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea is acceptable under fair use. Text must be used verbatim: any alterations must be clearly marked. ... In general, extensive quotation of copyrighted news materials (such as newspapers and wire services), movie scripts, or any other copyrighted text is not fair use and is prohibited by Wikipedia policy."
Jakew
19:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I agree, but there is a particular user (actually one current and a few dormant) who have a tendency to cherry-pick and make improper claims about those policies, so the only recourse at the time was to bring the entire text to prevent mischaracterization of the sources. Should this not be a problem, I too would be happy to shave it down; but that does not change the fact that this material properly belongs on the Circumcision page, and not its own article. Actually, I may do what I did with Anti-Zionism, and bring a short paraphrase in the article and the extire text in the footnote. This should obviate all problems. -- Avi 19:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'd agree that some brief quotes are needed in the
circumcision article, but do we really need 14 mostly long paragraphs of quoted material? According to
WP:FU: "Inclusion of brief attributed quotations of copyrighted text, used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea is acceptable under fair use. Text must be used verbatim: any alterations must be clearly marked. ... In general, extensive quotation of copyrighted news materials (such as newspapers and wire services), movie scripts, or any other copyrighted text is not fair use and is prohibited by Wikipedia policy."
Jakew
19:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I merged the information, so I am now fine deleting this article. I do not feel that there should even be a redirect, as anyone looking for a policy will automatically go to Circumcision first. -- Avi 19:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep- looks well sourced. Astrotrain 21:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete follows a false premise, no country among those in the article has established any policy, merely (voluntary) associations of some doctors have. Perhaps one could imply policies by statements of certain governments that they are Islamic replubics or follow Islamic law, but that's not the gist of this article. Carlossuarez46 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, there are no laws as far as I know ordaining circumcision, only religious and popular believes. I believe that we need references to the theme but not in a form that suggests that national governments either ordain or encourage it AlfPhotoman 22:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - This article is absurd, since I know of no country which actually sets a policy regarding circumcision and the article (in spite of the title) does not show any national policies. Just a waste of bandwidth. Jeffpw 22:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The heading in Circumcision reads Policies of various national medical associations, not the countries themselves. -- Avi 22:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- that is precisely what we are talking about, the title is not ... in various ... but Circumcision policies of various countries , which is a false statement in itself
AlfPhotoman
23:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Which is why this article should be deleted and the section in
Circumcision remain
. --
Avi
23:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Which is why this article should be deleted and the section in
Circumcision remain
- that is precisely what we are talking about, the title is not ... in various ... but Circumcision policies of various countries , which is a false statement in itself
AlfPhotoman
23:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, of course, per WP:NOT. And I wish those saying things like "looks well sourced" would actually read the nomination and policy, and that those wishing it were a different article, like History of circumcision, would realize that those articles already exist. Jayjg (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- A bit hasty to suggest deletion. A retitle and cleanup is in order but it seems like a legitimate topic. Savidan 05:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Which is amply discussed in Circumcision#Policies of various national medical associations. The current article is a misnomer, since there reallt is no governmental policy on Circumcsion, with the possible exception of Sweden, and the article itself was actually a somewhat unilateral spin-off of Circumcision to begin with. -- Avi 06:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, Rename, or Merge a well-sourced article; but, let's stop mistaking AFD for WP:CLEANUP. Neier 07:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Already been merged. See Circumcision#Policies of various national medical associations. -- Avi 07:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-04 09:36Z
Gillis family
DELETE
- Not notable. Linked to Baronetcy which at first check appears fictional. Also linked to vanity page of not-notable person which will soon join afd.- Kittybrewster 01:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Non-notable and a one-liner. Seicer ( talk) ( contribs) 17:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and WP:WeDon'tNeedAnyVanityArticles AlfPhotoman 22:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - part of fictional biography project relating to the alleged Gillis Baronets. AlexTiefling 15:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
DELETED BY DOUCHBAGS.
- Whatever...this person was a candidate for elected office so it wasn't a vanity page. It was created so people could atleast have an idea of who this person was when they would look over the list of candidates for that particular office.
- 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Cathleen Vitale
County council members and rumored candidates for higher office do not meet notability criteria in WP:BIO - Mocko13 18:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Even a winner of the office would have questionable notability. -- Dhartung | Talk 18:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Lacks notability and sources. L uis 1972 (Talk • My Contribs) 18:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Seems like she would flunk WP:BIO, even if sourced. youngamerican ( ahoy hoy) 21:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete minor apparatchik. Wikipedia is not a repository of junior politicians' resumés. Ohconfucius 06:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Tip to nominator: Consider using the
proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! --
King of
♥
♦
♣
♠
20:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)- 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.
- regreatably, speedy delete as recreation of deleted material. Though I continue to maintain that he's a notable topic, recreating copy-pasted material that was previously deleted is not the way to change consensus. Wintermut3 04:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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. -- Luigi30 ( Taλk) 17:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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. No harm done; many of us have newly-discovered algebraic identities in our younger days. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-05 09:03Z
Andrei's Powered-Base Rule
- Andrei's Powered-Base Rule ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
This page consists entirely of original research. Additionally, it was created by the creator of the alleged "rule", which violates the autobiography portion of the conflict-of-interest rules. Finally, it's not notable; there are literally an infinite number of "rules" that can be derived from algebra and some basic mathematical first principles, and there's nothing special about this one. Sarcasticidealist 00:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - per the author's own admission, this is original research. Zetawoof( ζ) 01:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ditto. Loniousmonk 03:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Despite the presentation, I am sure that this result, in correct, has been discovered and proved long ago. However, didn't we develop some kind of note or template to new authors whose first contribution was proposed for deletion, to explain the rules to them rather than just make them feel unwelcome? That would certainly be appropriate here.
Newyorkbrad
03:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Response: Your suggestion to retain new users whose first contribution is AFD'd is a great one, and if no such note or template exists, somebody should design one. However, as to your comment about being sure that this "rule" has been discovered and proved long ago, it likely hasn't been just because nobody's bothered - the basic rules of mathematics are well understood, and finding new ways of making them interact with each other is generally just a waste of time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sarcasticidealist ( talk • contribs) 08:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
- There are e.g. Template:AFDWarning to inform an author about the AFD nomination of his article and Template:Firstarticle for new users referring to a first article nominated for any type fo deletion referring both to speedy deletion crtieria and WP:NOT. -- Tikiwont 14:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete It's true, but naming it after a high schooler who supposedly (no way of
verifying this) wrote it out for the first time is just silly. I remember discovering in grade school that , does anybody propose we call this Veinor's identity?
Veinor
(talk to me)
21:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Veinor's point is well-taken, but let's not belittle the article-creator, either. Brad's Theorem was that the last digit of the fifth power of any (base-ten) integer is the same as the last digit of the integer. :) It seemed like a good idea at the time, and I am sure that if there had been a Wikipedia then I would have posted it, and been on the wrong end of this discussion. Newyorkbrad 21:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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.