Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 2 Deletion review archives: 2009 January January 4 >

3 January 2009

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Template:DTFD ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore | cache)) Template:DTFDB ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore | cache))

No clear consensus at time of Afd

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

User:Coaster7/Love_Systems (  | [[Talk:User:Coaster7/Love_Systems|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) → See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love Systems

Putting back up the new Love Systems page after previous DRVs deleted the page. This page is completely rewritten and updated. Coaster7 ( talk) 21:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.


Tribal Wars (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) ( AfD2) ( DRV) ( AfD3) Tribal Wars (game) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

I was surprised to find no article for this, but saw that it had been rebuilt and deleted 3 times. Discussed with closing editor who referred me to deletion review.

  1. Tribal Wars has over 3.4 million users. Not trivial or WP:CSD
  2. Tribal Wars is verifiable and has been mentioned in Wired as well as online sources: galaxy news 30, xweb, browser game digest, mmohub, sling, gamer chicks
  3. Is this a WP:BIAS issue?! Tribal Wars has WP articles in 17 other languages; German, Español, Eesti, Suomi, Français, Magyar, Italiano, Latviešu, Nederlands, Norsk (bokmål)‬, Polski, Português, Русский, Srpskohrvatski, Slovenčina, Svenska, Türkçe.
  4. In the month the Tribal Wars article was online for 5 days, it averaged 160 hits a day!. In a completely random sample, only the M 15 rifle averaged higher, by about 100 hits. Psion (comics), Bernard Jenkin, Fredericksburg, M15 rifle, Meg Campbell. Why deny an article users obviously are looking for?

Basically, the guidelines used to keep this page deleted are barely applicable, designed more for 2,000 hit web-comics and such. Keeping the article on the popular game is harmless, deleting it is harmful. I had no hand in the previous version of the page, but came to it last week. Please consider an overturn. You can see my rough version at: User:Knulclunk/Tribal Thanks! -- Knulclunk ( talk) 16:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply

WP:CSD-G4 is specifically inapplicable as part of deletion review. A7 was a reason given in the first AFD, user numbers alone "indicate why its subject is important or significant".-- Knulclunk ( talk) 20:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply
When you commented above "Not trivial or WP:CSD". I took that as a resoponse to the multiple CSD deletions of the page. AFAIK, CSD isn't an applicable arguement in deletion review in general and certainly G4 and A7 are both inherently unapplicable. However, since I cannot see the content deleted in the first AfD, I can't comment on whether the original A7 CSD suggestion was apt. In any case, given the discussion and sources, I have no problem with a recreation of this page - I'm just a sceptical person at heart. Usrnme h8er ( talk) 08:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC) reply
WP:RS if for "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source" -- So what exactly is being challenged about the article? The fact that the game exists? Because WP:RS and WP:NN and WP:V are three separate things and it seems to me that we have enough to pass all three. What some editors seem to be looking for is multiple reliable sources to prove notability, which really isn't a rule or even a guideline. -- Knulclunk ( talk) 20:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Well, one print source, and 3 moderated gaming forums, are they too trivial?-- Knulclunk ( talk) 05:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Print is probably ok if non-trivial. the on-linbe sourses need to be looked at individually. Spartaz Humbug! 22:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn & expand: The German article, much more detailed than any version of our article, is [1]; it contains what appears to be a good 3rd party reference to the g ame having won a prize [2] . The French version [3] is different, and also more detailed, though without any third party sources. it does appear the different WPs have different standards for this material. This is an example of Everyone's Out of Step but Johnny, a phrase which needs an article in main space, and a policy that needs a page in WP space. DGG ( talk) 17:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The article I roughed out is a translation of the German article. ( User:Knulclunk/Tribal) Yes, I feel most better-than-stub articles should eventually be translated into English to avoid WP:BIAS.-- Knulclunk ( talk) 20:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Permit recreation per the million test, if the 3.8 million user claim can be backed up by reliable sources. When more than 1 million people have participated in something, it's notable... and if the notability guideline doesn't back that up, then it's the guideline that's wrong, or more likely we simply haven't found sources proving notability yet. — PyTom ( talk) 17:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply
First, I'm not familiar with the "million test" and certainly against a potential policy which creates such an arbitrary inclusion criterion. Something is not encyclopeadic just because a million people have done/heard/thought it - nor is it unencyclopeadic just because only 40 have.
Second, the above linked sources, when discussing the number of players, range from 10,000+ [4] through "hundreds of thousands" [5] to 678,952 [6] all failing the "million test". Usrnme h8er ( talk) 18:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Well, I actually think something is encylopedic if a million people have taken action related to it, like creating a user account or buying a movie ticket. The inverse does not necessarily hold (there are plenty of things that are notable without passing this test), but it strikes me as a reasonable bright line beyond which it's okay to ignore the notability guideline. That being said, the tribal war website claims only a half-million users... but I would lean towards inclusion on the basis of this and the non-english references. — PyTom ( talk) 18:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply
This Number is Huge! Usrnme h8er ( talk) 08:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC) reply
3.4 million is based on global numbers, the 550,000 is just English.-- Knulclunk ( talk) 20:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Is that number (or the otherwise quoted 3.8 million) sourced? I couldn't find it in the above links. Usrnme h8er ( talk) 08:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Undelete / recreate per reliable sources given by nominator. It was deleted at the first AfD because these sources weren't yet available, and it looks like the second AfD was tainted by the out-of-process recreation, rather than the notability of the subject at that time. Brad 00:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I believe the previous creations and deletions caused people to be overly critical of the topic. While articles in other languages aren't inclusion criteria, it does show others appear to believe it is notable. If some Germans can determine the notability of the site that gave out the award, that should be ample notability right there. But naturally, the article should have solid references to avoid another deletion debate, the current version the nominator offers does not include such references (at least not inline; the sites he mentioned include a trivial mention and a some unreliable blogs along with some potential reliable ones). I believe this could be recreated, but not using the version the drv nominator is offering. - Mgm| (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment 3.8 million sure is a big number. Are there reliable, independent sources that have discussed the subject? Protonk ( talk) 02:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Soggy biscuit (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) ( AfD2) ( AfD3)

Listed here as this is a slightly complex case. Soggy biscuit was deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soggy biscuit (3rd nomination), with the closing admin interpreting the decision as merge to Biscuits and human sexuality. However, that article has now also been deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biscuits and human sexuality - because that article violated WP:SYNTH - clearly as a result of the merger! In any case, I dispute that merge was the correct outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soggy biscuit (3rd nomination) - there is either more consensus towards keeping or there is no consensus defaulting to keep. Therefore, overturn. DWaterson ( talk) 11:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Consensus is assessed by reference to policy not headcount. There was not enough sourcing for a full article so deletion or merge/redirect were the only options available. Personally I would have deleted or soft redirected to wictionary if that had been suggested in the discussion so I'm not able to do anything here other then endorse the close. Spartaz Humbug! 14:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • As far as I can tell the primary concern of the AfD was whether sufficient verifiability of notability existed for the term to motivate its own article - are you able to address those concerns? Usrnme h8er ( talk) 16:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn -- clearly, there was no consensus to delete, yet that is effectively what has now happened. Those !voting for keep or merge were making arguments backed by policy. Merging to Biscuits and human sexuality was probably not an ideal way to close, given that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biscuits and human sexuality stood a good chance of closing as delete at the time. (By the way, the WP:SYNTH violation was not a result of the merger -- the analyses by Nsk92 and Guest999 noted in the closing statement were made before the merger happened.) Jfire ( talk) 17:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn, restore to pre-redirect state, and immediately relist on procedural-fairness grounds. Closing as a redirect to an article that is up for deletion is on its face unfair. It's unfair to the redirected article, because the contributors who recommended redirect may not have realized the target was up for deletion, and it's unfair to those discussing the target article, as they may not realize that a deletion of this article will also delete another article. The fairest thing to do is overturn one, relist it, then when that discussion is over, overturn the other and relist it. This DRV is just for Soggy Biscuits, so I'll confine my recommendation to that: Overturn and relist. If the other article is also overturned, do not allow it to be relisted until after the new Soggy Biscuit AFD is complete. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 17:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Relist or in fact overturn, as this was an unintended consequence--I think there was general agreement that this part of the article was valid. DGG ( talk) 17:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Relist, basically on procedural and fairness grounds. I did not know about this AfD and did not see the pre-merge version of this article, so I can't really comment on the substance of what was in it. However, since the merge target was being AfD-ed at the same time and has now been deleted, it seems necessary to have a proper discussion if this article itself can stand on its own. Nsk92 ( talk) 18:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Restore - The Biscuits and human sexuality article was listed for deletion on 29 December 2008. Soggy biscuit was merged into Biscuits and human sexuality on 2 January 2009, while the Biscuits and human sexuality AfD was pending. Fortunately, the merge into the pending AfD article didn't have much impact on the Biscuits and human sexuality AfD discussion, so the Biscuits and human sexuality AfD close should be able to stand on its own. There does not seem to have been a consensus to remove the Soggy biscuit material from Wikipedia, so the remaining questions seems to be where to place the material within Wikipedia. At the time the AfD3 was closed as merge, the consensus to delete the target article seem to have already been formed. The merge target is gone and there isn't much of a discussion on where else to merge the info. It seems like the best solution is to restore soggy biscuit and allow it to be relisted at AfD should someone so desire. -- Suntag ☼ 18:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The concept of interactive?, communal?, shared?, contest? masterbation where the primary purpose is other than sexual stimulation seems to be a parent topic to soggy biscuit and Masturbate-a-thon. An approach might be to create a parent article to cover soggy biscuit, Masturbate-a-thon, and whatever else seems to fit the topic and then determine whether one or another subtopic warrants its own article. -- Suntag ☼ 18:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. While I'm aware that some users consider this an optional step, I would appreciate if the nominator could please explain why he omitted it (or, if there was a discussion that I missed, point it out)? Stifle ( talk) 21:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Did you confuse the Soggy biscuit and Biscuits and human sexuality AfDs? MBisanz closed the former, Sandstein the latter. DWaterson gave his rationale for going straight to DRV here. Jfire ( talk) 21:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Yes. I didn't see any benefit in trying to open negotiations due to the complexity of two AfDs closed by different admins. Straight to DRV seemed more sensible. DWaterson ( talk) 01:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_January_3&oldid=1138435585"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE