Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Pirates: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
SineBot (talk | contribs)
m Signing comment by 65.93.102.55 - "→‎Star Pirates: "
StarBaby5 (talk | contribs)
Line 48: Line 48:
:::::'''Agree''' Yeah, it was probably a bad choice of name for a [[WP:SOCK#LEGIT|legitimate sockpuppet (privacy)]], entirely too cute. I didn't have a problem with your question, I gave you an answer. I did have a problem with the resultant dogpile's assumptions. I support deletion because I believe it is the correct action, given WP's Notability Guidelines, period. Although it is considered bad form, as my motivations have been questioned multiple times both here and on my own talk page, I would observe that some in this discussion appear to be less concerned with improving WikiPedia, than with finding a rationale for keeping this page. [[User:Quasi Reality Event|Quasi Reality Event]] ([[User talk:Quasi Reality Event|talk]]) 20:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::'''Agree''' Yeah, it was probably a bad choice of name for a [[WP:SOCK#LEGIT|legitimate sockpuppet (privacy)]], entirely too cute. I didn't have a problem with your question, I gave you an answer. I did have a problem with the resultant dogpile's assumptions. I support deletion because I believe it is the correct action, given WP's Notability Guidelines, period. Although it is considered bad form, as my motivations have been questioned multiple times both here and on my own talk page, I would observe that some in this discussion appear to be less concerned with improving WikiPedia, than with finding a rationale for keeping this page. [[User:Quasi Reality Event|Quasi Reality Event]] ([[User talk:Quasi Reality Event|talk]]) 20:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. 1100 people is not noteable, even if these 1100 are very "active". (Enthusiasm does not increase numbers if I may say so) mmohut website seems to have a more solid view on this than the players. Neither does the claim mmohut would be outdated cut it. Looking at the revision history of said article I notice an explosion of edits in a very short time. Looking at the editors I can not help but get suspicious of Sockpuppeting. Therefore I raise the question of Sockpuppeting. There are a lot of newly registered wikipedia users, including an Admin of the game Star Pirates (see Discussion page of the article) as StarBaby5. I also notice that on this page (AfD:Star Pirates) that most delete votes come from longer time wikipedians who do not seem involved with this game while the keep votes seem to be from active players. Also, from a first hand try myself I have to make it clear that the 60000 number indicates the amount accounts in the game. It does not indicate how much use these accounts got. So someone at level 1, quitting after 1 minute and never coming back, those who are banned and retired are also included in that number. This does not increase the credibility of those promoting 60000 as a "not low player count" opposed to the 1100 number. (Incidentally I noticed players named Captain Waffles and Shinobi while there at Star Pirates). I think the original points for my nomination still stand. For example a link/reference to advertisment does not indicate notability, e.g. the paid Drive Comic post as referenced in the article. On the contrary, I think the external link to SpyBattle, another game run by Snakehead Games that is now included in the article strengthens the point that this article is motivated by marketing. I am the anonymous IP editor that nominated said article for removal. Thanks.<span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/88.217.110.241|88.217.110.241]] ([[User talk:88.217.110.241|talk]]) 01:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*'''Delete'''. 1100 people is not noteable, even if these 1100 are very "active". (Enthusiasm does not increase numbers if I may say so) mmohut website seems to have a more solid view on this than the players. Neither does the claim mmohut would be outdated cut it. Looking at the revision history of said article I notice an explosion of edits in a very short time. Looking at the editors I can not help but get suspicious of Sockpuppeting. Therefore I raise the question of Sockpuppeting. There are a lot of newly registered wikipedia users, including an Admin of the game Star Pirates (see Discussion page of the article) as StarBaby5. I also notice that on this page (AfD:Star Pirates) that most delete votes come from longer time wikipedians who do not seem involved with this game while the keep votes seem to be from active players. Also, from a first hand try myself I have to make it clear that the 60000 number indicates the amount accounts in the game. It does not indicate how much use these accounts got. So someone at level 1, quitting after 1 minute and never coming back, those who are banned and retired are also included in that number. This does not increase the credibility of those promoting 60000 as a "not low player count" opposed to the 1100 number. (Incidentally I noticed players named Captain Waffles and Shinobi while there at Star Pirates). I think the original points for my nomination still stand. For example a link/reference to advertisment does not indicate notability, e.g. the paid Drive Comic post as referenced in the article. On the contrary, I think the external link to SpyBattle, another game run by Snakehead Games that is now included in the article strengthens the point that this article is motivated by marketing. I am the anonymous IP editor that nominated said article for removal. Thanks.<span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/88.217.110.241|88.217.110.241]] ([[User talk:88.217.110.241|talk]]) 01:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::'''Comment'''. Thanks for follow up posting 88. I think the community of SP was upset because you asked for Speedy Deletion while the page was a stub. When we ban trolls from StarPirates we often have those former players promising eternal revenge so the aura wasn't good. Now that the SP page has had a few days to germinate, it's not perfect, but if the long time editors are saying it's not Wiki quality then so be it. It's good to know, and I'm glad that they are spending the time to indicate why. It seems game review sites are not considered reliable sources (they are true domain experts although generally not in Google News or Scholar). The challenge is that if that's the case then interesting Indy games, no matter how popular, will never make it into Wikipedia because to get newspaper widespread newspaper coverage you have to sign a gaming distribution deal. Not always, but that's the general rule.
:::'''Comment'''. Thanks for follow up posting 88. I think the community of SP was upset because you asked for Speedy Deletion while the page was a stub. When we ban trolls from StarPirates we often have those former players promising eternal revenge so the aura wasn't good. Now that the SP page has had a few days to germinate, it's not perfect, but if the long time editors are saying it's not Wiki quality then so be it. It's good to know, and I'm glad that they are spending the time to indicate why. It seems game review sites are not considered reliable sources (they are true domain experts although generally not in Google News or Scholar). The challenge is that if that's the case then interesting Indy games, no matter how popular, will never make it into Wikipedia because to get newspaper widespread newspaper coverage you have to sign a gaming distribution deal. Not always, but that's the general rule.
:::I haven't checked in a while, but I believe about half the players did actually play the game to level 3 or up. So I'm pretty comfortable with the 62,000 number. I have a lot of console games that I've never even opened the packaging.[[User:StarBaby5|StarBaby5]] ([[User talk:StarBaby5|talk]]) 03:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
:::'''Comment'''. '88' - You're also a multiaccounter and cheater. When you failed to harm Star Pirates from within and the admins banned you, next you jumped to Wikipedia as a vendetta. You should be more honest with your conflict of interest. Wikipedia should be above that. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/65.93.102.55|65.93.102.55]] ([[User talk:65.93.102.55|talk]]) 03:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::'''Comment'''. '88' - You're also a multiaccounter and cheater. When you failed to harm Star Pirates from within and the admins banned you, next you jumped to Wikipedia as a vendetta. You should be more honest with your conflict of interest. Wikipedia should be above that. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/65.93.102.55|65.93.102.55]] ([[User talk:65.93.102.55|talk]]) 03:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::I haven't checked in a while, but I believe about half the players did actually play the game to level 3 or up. So I'm pretty comfortable with the 62,000 number. I have a lot of console games that I've never even opened the packaging. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:StarBaby5|StarBaby5]] ([[User talk:StarBaby5|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/StarBaby5|contribs]]) 03:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::'''Comment'''. I didn't want to mention that as it seems overly personal and perhaps irrelevant, but yes, as the game creator I can confirm that's true. [[User:StarBaby5|StarBaby5]] ([[User talk:StarBaby5|talk]]) 03:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. I'm a long time Star Pirates player. While I love the game, I can't honestly say that I think it's notable enough to deserve its own Wikipedia article. Only a few of the current references in the article are independent; a large majority are to content created by Snakehead Games or by players. This says to me that while SP has a very active and motivated community (as I well know), it hasn't attracted much attention from the world outside its player base, and therefore probably is not sufficiently notable. Incidentally, I don't think there's any need to assume sockpuppeting, as the person above me suggests. As I said, the SP community is active and motivated, and the "Save the SP Wikipedia page" thread in the SP forums has over 70 responses. It's not hard to believe that a whole bunch of players have joined in to flesh out the article. I'm... just on the other side of the issue. I expect you can understand why I'm leaving this unsigned. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/116.212.197.129|116.212.197.129]] ([[User talk:116.212.197.129|talk]]) 02:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*'''Delete'''. I'm a long time Star Pirates player. While I love the game, I can't honestly say that I think it's notable enough to deserve its own Wikipedia article. Only a few of the current references in the article are independent; a large majority are to content created by Snakehead Games or by players. This says to me that while SP has a very active and motivated community (as I well know), it hasn't attracted much attention from the world outside its player base, and therefore probably is not sufficiently notable. Incidentally, I don't think there's any need to assume sockpuppeting, as the person above me suggests. As I said, the SP community is active and motivated, and the "Save the SP Wikipedia page" thread in the SP forums has over 70 responses. It's not hard to believe that a whole bunch of players have joined in to flesh out the article. I'm... just on the other side of the issue. I expect you can understand why I'm leaving this unsigned. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/116.212.197.129|116.212.197.129]] ([[User talk:116.212.197.129|talk]]) 02:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Revision as of 03:47, 14 December 2011

Star Pirates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominated by an IP editor as spam or overly-promotional. Note: nominee did not complete AfD process; choice was to remove it or follow it through, and I'm choosing the latter. PKT(alk) 12:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Logan Talk Contributions 13:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article is an intstruction manual on how to play the game and a promotion for it. No indication that it is notable other than self-promotional sources. 1100 people playing a game is not really very notable. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Can someone clarify the reasons this article is being suggested for deletion? As stated above, the initial nominee did not follow the process and they put forth vastly different reasons than those listed above.Druidelias (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer The original reasons dealt with a lack of resources, "promotional bias", and claimed that the article does not meet Notability Guidelines. No actual supporting evidence has been put forth on any of these topics except for a rebuke regarding an old review of the game posted in the talk section of the SP page. (Captain Waffles) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.101.33.49 (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
please read your IP's talk page, someone left information on how to sign your comments yourself...consider creating an account as well Quasi Reality Event (talk) 06:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question User "Quasi Reality Event" : your Wikipedia name is based upon an NPC only found in the game Star Pirates. Can you please explain your relationship with the game? StarBaby5
  • Question Am I mistaken or is the originator of the deletion request an anonymous user with no other posts or contributions? If so, I ask for some verification of their qualifications for the statements made as they appear to be based upon prior experience? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.102.55 (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question User "Quasi Reality Event" : I would like to know your relationship with the game Star Pirates, also. Because, if you are a person who was previously banned from SP, then you throwing up claims that the Star Pirates page should be deleted should (in my opinion) be taken accordingly. People who have broken rules while playing games, and are caught, usually are not the kind of people who give very honest or revealing information about the game.Shinobi1991 —Preceding undated comment added 05:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Answer I'd say that you are skirting the edge of WP:PA there...you do not have any evidence to back up your assumptions, and in any event, I was not the user who requested this page be deleted, I merely agree with the proposed action...because it is the correct one. Please keep the discussion confined to the subject and not personal attacks. In any event, who nominated the article for deletion and why is most likely a moot point if the article should, in fact be deleted. I would suggest learning more about how to actually edit and contribute to WikiPedia correctly and courteously. (Notability Guidelines and What WikiPedia is Not are relevant) Quasi Reality Event (talk) 05:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Criteria for speedy deletion indicate that it is to be used sparingly and in specific cases. "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." & "Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion." --> this should not be applied as there is a discussion here with mixed opinions here. Using speedy deletion is incorrect as it is not a foregone conclusion. "The criteria for speedy deletion specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. They cover only the cases specified in the rules below." furthermore "WP:BEFORE C.1.If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." --> The stub/promotional nature of article is evolving rapidly since Dec 9th. I would conclude that while the article needs to evolve, the article is not a Candidate for Speedy Deletion. Clearly at the very least this article does not fall under "the most obvious case" that cannot be "fixed through normal editing". StarBaby5StarBaby5 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment - but this is not speedy deletion? This is AfD. "Speedy" criteria don't apply here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks for the comment. It's confusing as under the discussion area of the article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Pirates, the initial nominiation by "88.217.109.248" was "Afd: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star_Pirates Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7 and CSD G11) Reasons: No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content)."
I am the game creator, (as I have tried to clearly state). I've edited articles under long forgotten logins, but this is the first deletion I've been involved in. I realise my opinion is not critical to decision making here, and even likely biased, but I'm confused why the initially rough article isn't given a chance to evolve. There are various guidelines indicating that's a prefered path "WP:BEFORE C.1.If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." & "before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." --> If it isn't a proper article then it shouldn't be live, but can you clarify why those guidelines wouldn't apply please? Thanks! StarBaby5 (talk
  • Keep This article is not promotional in any way that I can see it merely documents a game that many people play, with discussion about its mechanics and game back story. 1100 daily players of a game may not be considered very "Notable" but Ive seen articles on Wikipedia that might interest at most 10 people and are not considered for deletion. Just because an article on Wikipedia does not meet with your personal tastes is no reason to remove it. If this article is deleted then every single article bout any game even something like Call of Duty needs to be removed, fairplay is essential. MykeyFinn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.161.161 (talkcontribs)
  • Delete. I don't see any reliable sources establishing notability, nor can I find any. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are many reliable sources outlined in the External Links and the References Pages. Let's see, there is an interview from thespec.com (a local newspaper), EO gamer, Apollo Fireweaver, Comp Talks (Yes, a little outdated, but still a review), TGT Media, Best Browser Games of the Year website, and the Daily News from McMaster University.Shinobi1991 (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of these are not, in fact, reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recess I think we need to sit out for a little while. I haven't seen anyone new since the start of this page, and both sides are very clearly biased. We have players, and ex players, along with an admin. An Objective opinion is needed, so I vote further discussion be with held until a fresh and unbiased viewpoint can add something to the discussion. The debate in this section has made little progress and hinges off the same points on both sides. (Captain Waffles) 173.101.33.49 (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree HOWEVER, I don't know of anyone who has been identified as an ex-player, once again you are making assumptions without any evidence to back it up. I would ask that you refrain from making such assumptions, which amount to borderline personal attacks, in the future. There are already several "neutral", WikiPedia editors who have weighed in on the subject on the "Delete" side, and what amounts to outside influences recruited from the subject of the article nominated for deletion on the "Keep" side which will not reflect well on your argument to Keep.Quasi Reality Event (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do not attempt to slander me. I mentioned no names, and there is nothing in my remark that could be considered "Personal" by even the most stringent standards. As well, there is no "Meat Puppetry" here. Everyone in this discussion had been making edits or watching the updates on the Wikipedia page before this one was even made. We are the SP community and therefor the leading experts on the subject, many of us were not editors before the page was made but joined in to help improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.101.33.49 (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not a mod/admin here but any SP players and QRE I would highly appreciate it if you could please keep it cool and with no flames. This type of conversation benefits nobody. It's embarassing considering the quality of the normal discourse on StarPirates. Any players here please respect Quasi Reality Event's right to speak, even if you disagree.
Quasi Reality Event: I actually came up with the concept of Quasi Reality Event as part of StarPirates. It's never been used elsewhere in the web until you took is as a user name when you joined Wikipedia. You can understand how players might consider that somewhat strange. Apologies if questiong the history of that name causes you discomfort. I will say there has been no meat puppetry on my behalf. I asked players to come and comment on the article, but certainly not to influence the editors. We are topic experts as previous posters have stated. Let's be clear, feedback of new editors is not that valued as we're not experienced editors. That's a good thing. Aside from asking for clarification a confusing delete nomination, let's let the experienced editors do their job perhaps?StarBaby5 (talk)
Agree Yeah, it was probably a bad choice of name for a legitimate sockpuppet (privacy), entirely too cute. I didn't have a problem with your question, I gave you an answer. I did have a problem with the resultant dogpile's assumptions. I support deletion because I believe it is the correct action, given WP's Notability Guidelines, period. Although it is considered bad form, as my motivations have been questioned multiple times both here and on my own talk page, I would observe that some in this discussion appear to be less concerned with improving WikiPedia, than with finding a rationale for keeping this page. Quasi Reality Event (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 1100 people is not noteable, even if these 1100 are very "active". (Enthusiasm does not increase numbers if I may say so) mmohut website seems to have a more solid view on this than the players. Neither does the claim mmohut would be outdated cut it. Looking at the revision history of said article I notice an explosion of edits in a very short time. Looking at the editors I can not help but get suspicious of Sockpuppeting. Therefore I raise the question of Sockpuppeting. There are a lot of newly registered wikipedia users, including an Admin of the game Star Pirates (see Discussion page of the article) as StarBaby5. I also notice that on this page (AfD:Star Pirates) that most delete votes come from longer time wikipedians who do not seem involved with this game while the keep votes seem to be from active players. Also, from a first hand try myself I have to make it clear that the 60000 number indicates the amount accounts in the game. It does not indicate how much use these accounts got. So someone at level 1, quitting after 1 minute and never coming back, those who are banned and retired are also included in that number. This does not increase the credibility of those promoting 60000 as a "not low player count" opposed to the 1100 number. (Incidentally I noticed players named Captain Waffles and Shinobi while there at Star Pirates). I think the original points for my nomination still stand. For example a link/reference to advertisment does not indicate notability, e.g. the paid Drive Comic post as referenced in the article. On the contrary, I think the external link to SpyBattle, another game run by Snakehead Games that is now included in the article strengthens the point that this article is motivated by marketing. I am the anonymous IP editor that nominated said article for removal. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.217.110.241 (talk) 01:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks for follow up posting 88. I think the community of SP was upset because you asked for Speedy Deletion while the page was a stub. When we ban trolls from StarPirates we often have those former players promising eternal revenge so the aura wasn't good. Now that the SP page has had a few days to germinate, it's not perfect, but if the long time editors are saying it's not Wiki quality then so be it. It's good to know, and I'm glad that they are spending the time to indicate why. It seems game review sites are not considered reliable sources (they are true domain experts although generally not in Google News or Scholar). The challenge is that if that's the case then interesting Indy games, no matter how popular, will never make it into Wikipedia because to get newspaper widespread newspaper coverage you have to sign a gaming distribution deal. Not always, but that's the general rule.
I haven't checked in a while, but I believe about half the players did actually play the game to level 3 or up. So I'm pretty comfortable with the 62,000 number. I have a lot of console games that I've never even opened the packaging.StarBaby5 (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. '88' - You're also a multiaccounter and cheater. When you failed to harm Star Pirates from within and the admins banned you, next you jumped to Wikipedia as a vendetta. You should be more honest with your conflict of interest. Wikipedia should be above that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.102.55 (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I didn't want to mention that as it seems overly personal and perhaps irrelevant, but yes, as the game creator I can confirm that's true. StarBaby5 (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm a long time Star Pirates player. While I love the game, I can't honestly say that I think it's notable enough to deserve its own Wikipedia article. Only a few of the current references in the article are independent; a large majority are to content created by Snakehead Games or by players. This says to me that while SP has a very active and motivated community (as I well know), it hasn't attracted much attention from the world outside its player base, and therefore probably is not sufficiently notable. Incidentally, I don't think there's any need to assume sockpuppeting, as the person above me suggests. As I said, the SP community is active and motivated, and the "Save the SP Wikipedia page" thread in the SP forums has over 70 responses. It's not hard to believe that a whole bunch of players have joined in to flesh out the article. I'm... just on the other side of the issue. I expect you can understand why I'm leaving this unsigned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.212.197.129 (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]