Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 24: Difference between revisions
→[[Metrocenter Mall]]: closing (overturn; list at AfD) |
→[[Seriously!]]: closing (now at AfD) |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
====[[Seriously!]]==== |
|||
:{{la|Seriously!}} — ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seriously!|AfD]]) |
|||
This article was speedily deleted despite valid protest. The protest was not sufficiently examined before the page was speedily deleted, and as such, should be restored. The reason for speedy deletion was that the page was non-notable. However, there are numerous other websites with pages on Wikipedia that are much smaller than [http://www.seriouszone.com Seriously!]. The site has been home to the official message boards for the entire [[Serious Sam]] franchise for approximately the last 6 years, and combined with its 14,000+ members and 750,000 posts, this is hardly non-notable. Additionally, it's the biggest website out there for the half-dozen [[Serious Sam]] games, and is the first non-"official" website in a Google search for "serious sam" (4th overall, above even Microsoft's Xbox.com listing for Serious Sam). These should be enough reasons to have the page restored and have content editors continue to add content. If there is still need for discussion about deletion, this can be done through a non-speedy process with actual discussion instead of instant deletion. |
|||
--[[User:SamFan64|SamFan64]] 21:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''List on AFD.''' Minor procedural nit, is that WP:CSD G4 does not apply to speedies, so the re-deletion was technically not per policy. A case could be made that the original article did assert importance, so the original A7 speedy is questionable as well. I don't believe it will survive AfD (and I'll argue for its deletion there myself), but it deserves its day in court. -- [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 21:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
**I felt the article was an A7; putting G4 in my edit summary was something that I didn't put much thought into. There's no point in having the community argue over an article they can't see, so I will undelete it so that it can be listed on [[WP:AFD]]. <sub>[[User:J Di|JD]]</sub><sup>[[User talk:J Di|talk]]</sup> 21:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment''' - I was unaware of specifics on deletion of articles and all of this until after it was deleted and I read some of the policies. I was planning on adding more and more details one step at a time. If the article is restored I could go ahead and add more details that make the page notable instead of going into mundane details on other topics first, and could also have others familiar with the site (people on the message boards) add notable details as well. --[[User:SamFan64|SamFan64]] 21:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse status quo'''. Giving it a chance on AfD was a good call. [[User:Chriscf|Chris]] <small>[[User:Chriscf/The Wiki Factor|cheese]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chriscf&action=edit&section=new whine]</small> 00:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Allow AfD to continue''', source citations are an assertion of notability, which prevents speedy under A7. From there it should be left to the community to decide. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] 11:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
====[[Gaming World]]==== |
====[[Gaming World]]==== |
||
Revision as of 17:09, 29 November 2006
- Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November)
24 November 2006
I would like to have the deletion of this article reviewed because I believe that the reasons stated on the original AfD are untrue. It was speedily deleted due being about a non-notable website, which I find a bit strange. The submitter said that it isn't notable in its field (which is amateur RPG creation); the site was rather large, however, with over 30,000 members and high-ranking Google results (for example, by far the most popular software for the creation of RPG games is RPG maker; while results for this software are mostly limited to product information, Gaming World is the first actual community site listed for a phrase such as "rpg maker game", which yields 1,730,000 results). The submitter also said that the site cannot easily be found when searching on Google for its name, Gaming World, but this also seems to be untrue; it instead shows up as the first result. I think that this website is easily sufficiently notable in its field to warrant inclusion. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 20:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Alexa rank of 72,010 as of this timestamp. (aeropagitica) 20:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, website doesn't meet the notability guidelines for web content. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 21:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Deleted per web guidelines. Eusebeus 11:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I'd like to add that while perhaps the site may not be notable (all the while it is quite notable in the field of amateur RPG creation, as Google points out), it does concern me that the AfD was closed with an untruth among its reasons (namely, the fact that searching for the name of the site does not yield that site as result, which is simply false). Is anybody (the closing admin) going to clarify this? function msikma(user:UserPage, talk:TalkPage):Void 21:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse. Again, you mistake "notability" for "some people know about it". WP:WEB actually talks about multiple non-trivial third-party reliable sources. How large a site is and how many members it has is irrelevant. ColourBurst 20:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
(Single by Keane) I firstly started this article a months ago before exactly knowing the Music guidelines on this Wikipedia. As it was not a single release it was soon redirectered by RasputinAXP, thing I finally accepted. A week ago, I recreated the article though it wasn't an official release yet but a rumour. The Mekon created an AfD process in order to delete the article. Though I firstly strongly opposed finally I accepted his AfD. However, on November 22 the Keane official page gave official details for the single release so now there is an official source and a reason to keep the article here: [1]. I'd only wish a quick consensus to remove protection for the page and create the article as now, as I've told, there is an official source. Fluence 16:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Undelete - premise for deleting the article during the AfD was that it was crystal-balling, which might have been the case back then. However, seeing that an official reliable source has confirmed release date of the single [2], I think there is now a valid raison d'être for this article to be undeleted. Kimchi.sg 17:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Undelete per Kimchi. As an aside, Fluence largely knows more about Keane stuff than anyone I've encountered, and I'd suggest giving him a little more credit on the Keane stuff in the future. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Undelete, however (badlydrawnjeff), please don't give the user free run to recreate articles as he has been. The article WAS speculation, it WAS poor quality (and recreations still are, IMHO), and the user needs to learn how Wikipedia works and what belongs here. He also needs to understand that it isn't a game, and isn't about "winning". Nphase 10:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, AfD was clearly in favor of deletion. Only "source" currently cited is primary-when someone besides the artist's own site has seen fit to comment on this, it can be considered notable and reliably sourced. Seraphimblade 10:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, in fact, Keanemusic.com was the second source to publish this, a couple of hours after the first one in spite is the artist's official website. Please Seraphimblade check the Music guidelines on the Wikipedia where every official single released is notable, of course if it has been officially announced.--Fluence 00:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Undelete, existency has been confirmed. (Sorry to have made another request, I did not see this one, as is wasn't indicated on the talk page.) Jo9100 02:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)