Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunder

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Ingoolemo ^talk 05:07, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Sunder

• Merge with a larger article about online organizations. However other groups as Sturmgrenadier should also be merged into the larger article. --Magen 15:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Does this mean you change your vote from Delete to Merge on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sturmgrenadier? ChronoSphere 18:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, and I reflected it on Sturm's VFD page. Magen 14:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable advert for a MMORPG group. Wikibofh 17:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Habap, Destinova1 and Chronosphere are all members of Sturmgrenadier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.55.121.15 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) (Added Destionva1 to list ChronoSphere 21:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC))
  • This is true; Habap has made some non-Sunder related edits, but Chronosphere has only made Sunder-, Sturmgrenadier-, and his own talk-page-related edits. jglc | t | c 13:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I like to think my work on paratroopers (506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, Lynn "Buck" Compton, and Operation Market Garden), in copyediting (Nathaniel Eaton, Police of Italy, and Nonperson) and in general military history (Henry Johnson, Rufus King (Civil War General) and Harlem Hellfighters) would make it seem like I am an actual Wikipedian. Most of my last 50 edits are in fact on this issue and over the last few days, but I would think it is not the majority of my Wiki-ing. --Habap 14:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree with this; that's why I say you have some non-Sunder edits. Chronosphere, on the other hand, has no evidence of signing up for Wikipedia for any reason other than to work on the Sunder page. jglc | t | c 15:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I've been on wikipedia for a while, though not much of an editor - i'm a lurker by admission. Though I would imagine that shouldn't have any weight on the matter - my logic and reasoning should count over why I am here. And this is something that I have knowledge and a vested interest in. Isn't a passion for a subject matter the way many articles get written on wikipedia? If we had a ban on people writing or commenting on articles they have a vested interest in, nothing would get written! :D I want to see entries on online gaming organizations in this Wiki - its not a fad, its not some small thing, and I believe its notable enough to deserve an entry on this Wiki. I orignally voted a weak delete on this article due to it being a blatant advert, saying that I would change my vote if it was edited not to be. It was edited corespondingly, though I still think it could use some work - so I also changed my vote. ChronoSphere 16:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Retain Apparently, they have over 200 members, which is above the example low threshold of interest. A similar page exists for Sturmgrenadier. Oddly enough, Sunder is made up of former members of Sturmgrenadier. Together they claim a thousand members. Perhaps significant, perhaps not. Maybe an article on multi-game online gaming units should be created that contains information on all such groups? --Habap 18:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Even if the 200 members claim is true, 200 members isn't nearly enough for an encylopedia entry by that criterion alone. Plenty of newsgroups, forums, lodges, and local organisations have thousands of members. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:43, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Further comment: Also, neither of the two Sunder URLs given in the article have any Alexa rank at all: SunderHQ and Sunder Radio (Alexa ranks the top approx. 7 million sites on the web). This is startling for a group whose claim-to-fame is its online activities. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:55, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Maybe we should give them a chance to change it to an encyclopedic article instead of outright deletion - there's already a notice about NNPOV there. Though I have to admit they themselves wrote it and would probably not like having to gut the article to put it as NPOV. If nothing changes there before the delete timer runs out, I'll vote for deletion. In the meanwhile, I'll add a notice that its a candidate for deletion - its not on the page at the moment. ChronoSphere 21:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge Its an Advert right now. If it gets edit to be non-advert, NPOV, I may change my vote. ChronoSphere 00:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • As I said, the new edit makes the page more factual instead of NNPOV - and please keep in mind that both myself and Habap have been reverting vandalism of the sunder page. We both feel that online gaming organizations are not a small thing anymore, and feel that they deserve a mention within Wikipedia. ChronoSphere 23:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. --Carnildo 00:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable advertising ploy. --Wetman 05:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with a larger article about online organizations. It's unreasonable to expect something that's been around for less than 6 months to appear on Alexa. There are also a number of equally prominent gaming organizations that don't have entries in Wikipedia, such as Conquest www.conquest-guild.org, Afterlife www.afterlifeguild.org, and Fires of Heaven www.fohguild.org. All of the aforementioned organizations have been around longer than either Sunder or Sturmgrenadier, and have had a much larger impact on gaming in general, regardless of their memberbases. Frankly, this dispute seems to have erupted out of a vendetta against Sunder on the part of Sturmgrenadier, as both users Habap and ChronoSphere are current members of Sturmgrenadier. It's notable that both have voted to delete the Sunder entry, but to retain the Sturmgrenadier entry, in spite of the inherent similarities of each organization and each entry. --Vyrus 18:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My apologies. I am clarifying my point in my earlier comment. Retain, along with the half-dozen other such pages for Maza, Team 3D, Sogamed, NiP, Theafers, and Phaze II among others I didn't find in a quick search. I've got nothing against Sunder and, since I don't play WoW, hadn't heard of it until the editing of the SG page. As one can see on the Talk:Sturmgrenadier, I have been campaigning to keep information that indicates Sturmgrenadier is not "perfect". I have created a stub for Online Gaming Organizations and have posted on the Talk:Online Gaming Organizations page that it might be appropriate to list, but not describe these organizations there. --Habap 18:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The similarities between the Sturmgrenadier article and the Sunder article are superficial - Sturmgrenadier is larger, older by almost 5 years, is ranked on Alexa Sturmgrenadier.comand has been mentioned in mainstream press by USA Today on June 24th, 2003. And as you may note by reading the text next to my vote above, my rationale behind voting was because the article was a blatant advert - not because I am a member of SG. Please take care to read the discussion in its entirety before making declarations on editors intentions. Please also note that I had changed my vote as a result of the subsequent edits to the article, as I said I would, since I had originally voted a weak delete, contigennt on the article remaining the way it was originally written. ChronoSphere 20:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • Let me note that this is Vyrus's second edit; the first is an entry on the Sturmgrenadier talk page. These are the only edits he has. jglc | t | c 20:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To clarify the origins of the issue, it appears to have started in the 29th of May when an unknown person added the paragraph on Sunder to the SG page. Neither Chronosphere nor I was the one that VfD'd this article. I know that there are others (one from SG who has been chastised for it) who are not registered and are actually committing anonymous vandalism to these pages. --Habap 20:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. "Established in January 2005"? Come back in January 2010 and see if anybody cares. Quale 21:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable gaming clan. This page is merely an advertisement for them. --SunWuKong 05:59, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- non-notable, not really encyclopedic, plus what Quale and SunWuKong said.—chris.lawson (talk) 00:50, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.