Content deleted Content added
→Fundamental Surprise: closing (del. endorsed) |
→[[Dark Galaxy (Computer Game)]]: closing (del. endorsed) |
||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. |
Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. |
||
--> |
--> |
||
====[[Dark Galaxy (Computer Game)]]==== |
|||
The article in question was deleted mainly because it was considered non-notable, and poorly written. However, the article was significantly reformatted and revamped, making the second complaint moot- seeing as many votes were cast before these alterations, it is likely that what was a tie vote to delete would have come to a different conclusion. As to the article's notability, there was considerable disagreement amongst the voters whether it was sufficiently notable to remain on Wikipedia and the discussion was ended (seemingly prematurely) before a consensus was reached. In light of these facts I think the article should be undeleted and relisted as an AFD until a more conclusive discussion and vote has taken place. -[[User:PhoenixPinion|PhoenixPinion]] 23:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
BY the way, here's the AFD archive: [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dark_Galaxy_%28computer_game%29|Dark Galaxy (Computer Game) AFD]] |
|||
*'''Endorse closure, keep deleted.''' Only the "keep" opinions mentioned that the article was poorly written. Being poorly written was not a factor mentioned in the "delete" opinions, which mentioned non-notability and the absence of "multiple non-trivial third-party articles" about the game. The only obvious way for a rewrite to address the concerns of those arguing for deletion would be for the rewrite to include previously-uncited reliable sources, independent of the game's website, testifying to the game's importance. The rewrite did not do this; when deleted, the only references were to the www.darkgalaxy.com website itself and to an IRC chat page. In other words: with regard to those arguing for deletion, the rewrite didn't change anything. Nothing has been said by [[User:PhoenixPinion|PhoenixPinion]] that would suggest that undeleting and relisting the article would result in a different AfD outcome. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] [[User_talk:dpbsmith|(talk)]] 15:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
**'''Comment''' Many "delete" opinions simply cited the reason as 'spam'. Frankly, it did read like spam/advertisement (very unencyclopedic) until the point where I re-wrote it. --[[User:The Raven|The Raven]] 21:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Relist''' Seeing as I am the one who re-wrote the article, I would like to see it re-listed. Selfish arguments aside however, It is ironic to me that it was from one of those 'non-trivial third-party articles' (A review of the game, to be specific) that I found the game in the first place (and started playing it). It is unfortunate that I came across the article while it was on its 5th day afd, so I had barely just finished re-writing it before it was deleted. I was not aware that more external links were needed to address the notability issue (It has a large active community of AT LEAST 6000 players). That being said, I'm fairly certain at least several 'non-trivial third party articles' exist about the game. --[[User:The Raven|The Raven]] 20:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
**'''Comment''' Also, if the agreement is to keep the article deleted, I would like to '''Request''' the content for my userpage (I worked on it quite a bit to make it encyclopedic), thanks. --[[User:The Raven|The Raven]] 20:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
***'''Another Comment''' To cite a precedent. Please take a look at [[Slave Hack]]. Another computer browser game which I happen to play, yet its considerably less notable, and it was not deleted. (With no external sources either...) --[[User:The Raven|The Raven]] 20:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
****It's also never been nominated for deletion let alone been kept at AfD, so I'm not sure what your point is. You're welcome to nominate it for deletion for the reasons you yourself state, so long you do so on the basis of those reasons, and not because 'Dark Galaxy was deleted so so should this', to avoid accusations of [[WP:POINT]]. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 00:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
****Slave hack has also had the <nowiki>{{notability}}</nowiki> tag for about five days now without a single edit or mention of notability, so it could be up on the chopping block soon as well. --[[User:Wafulz|Wafulz]] 00:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse closure, keep deleted.''' on the basis that no new information has been found. The game still does not have any reliable third-party sources, which is troublesome for things like [[WP:V]] and [[WP:N]]. Without sources, the article is still at its core the same- an entry on a non-notable online game, whether it falls under "spam" or not. There's no reason to think that this article would avoid another AfD based on its rewrite. --[[User:Wafulz|Wafulz]] 00:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
** ''Comment''. What do you consider a 'reliable third-party source'? I have glanced over, [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources]] but it is still unclear in this situation : For example I could list several 'reviews' of the game from various websites, but it is up to your discression to determine their reliability. For example (from a google search on 'Dark Galaxy reviews') : [http://www.mpogd.com/reviews/?ID=286 What About This?] --[[User:The Raven|The Raven]] 01:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*** It would seem to me that (given the game's website itself) and the numerous reviews there are no problems with [[WP:V]] , and its only [[WP:N]] which is the problem. --[[User:The Raven|The Raven]] 03:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
** A 'Reliable third party source' is variable, but in this case it would probably be along the lines of significant, large or well-known, independent games/games awards websites that could be widely acknowledged as neutral. Unfortunately, this rules out the "Submit a game for review" variety, which is what your link falls under. Basically, if a game garners enough attention from reputable, well-known critics to independently review it, then it establishes itself as notable within the gaming community. I know an example of such an awards page would be the [[Webby Awards]], though right now no gaming review site comes to mind. --[[User:Wafulz|Wafulz]] 02:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*** You are right about the "Submit game for review" variety, however it is not as if users are submitting the reviews themselves. So I believe it is safe to assume they are reliable... However, I know of very few 'well-known' game awards websites, and those that I do know do not review 'Browser-based' games. Thus, I find it hard to imagine that many browser games would qualify under such a criterion, except those with unquestionable popularity (such as say, [[Ogame]]). If you do think of a 'reputable' game review site that reviews browser games as well, let me [[User_talk:The_Raven|know]] , as it will probably be usefull to me in the future, in deciding whether or not to expend effort to write an article about a game. Thanks. --[[User:The Raven|The Raven]] 03:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 22:02, 13 August 2006
- Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 August)
8 August 2006
Duel Academy
I would like to know why the Duel Academy article was deleted. It should not have been, because it is perfectly fine to have that there. It is about a reasonable thing from a television programme. Deleting it is like deleting a character.
At least please give a reasonable explanation, because I am very pissed off about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChaosSorcerer91 (talk • contribs)
- Per AfD, it's covered at Yu-Gi-Oh! GX. ~ trialsanderrors 20:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse Valid AfD it was run for 5 days then deleted I see no problems here. Whispering(talk/c) 20:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion: good-faith nomination, appropriate length and discussion in AfD, appropriate closure consensus. Nothing out of process. Note that deletion review is for discussing the deletion process, and not the content, per se... that's what AfD is for. --Kinu t/c 05:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion; the process worked, the reasoning is valid, etc. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion process was followed. Themindset 19:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)