Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 August 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Calton (talk | contribs) at 04:28, 6 August 2006 (→[[:Category:Companies of mainland China]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search
< August 4 August 6 >
Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 <august-gen>)]]

5 August 2006

Category talk:Companies of mainland China

Talk page of deleted category need not be deleted, especially when it contains arguments to contest the speedy deletion, to fulfil the {{hangon}} instruction as provided on the {{db-empty}} tag. — Instantnood 20:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted More grist for User:Instantnood's long-term edit-warring on China-related articles. This post will be followed, if he remains true to form, by a wikilawering response demanding I offer up proof. To which I pre-emptively refer to his ArbCom case -- and to further pre-empt, yes, it's primarily about you and your behavior. --Calton | Talk 04:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Companies of mainland China

This category was intentionally depopulated, then marked {{db-empty}}. It was marked unresolved in an previous CfD (details provided at category talk:companies of mainland China, but that was deleted too). Depopulating and deleting it is in effect recognising one of the two contesting points of view in the dispute. That's not what administrators when executing speedy deletions should have done. — Instantnood 20:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted More grist for User:Instantnood's long-term edit-warring on China-related articles. This post will be followed, if he remains true to form, by a wikilawering response demanding I offer up proof. To which I pre-emptively refer to his ArbCom case -- and to further pre-empt, yes, it's primarily about you and your behavior. --Calton | Talk 04:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Airports of mainland China

Was originally a {{categoryredirect}}, but was tagged {{db-empty}} by user:SchmuckyTheCat. {{Categoryredirect}}s are always kept empty. They're maintained by a bot. — Instantnood 20:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objection!

AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objection!

Despite the overwhelming flow of sockpuppetry and it's questionable notability (in my personal opinion), it appears to me that no consensus would have been a more appro result considering the established accounts who voted. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 19:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse status quo, redirect is fine. Just zis Guy you know? 21:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: That was one of the few AfD's that I saw and didn't take part in, so I can comment. It really looked like a generally strong delete, to me, as the nonce accounts were pretty thick, and there would have needed to be quite a bit of tossing out. In a way, a redirect is a sort of non-consensus delete, as the old content is present in the history. If there is more evidence (and less shouting by one-time-onlies), there may be a reconsideration. Geogre 22:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If you'll look at the deletion log and history, you'll notice he deleted the page and then made the redirect, purging the old content. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 23:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yah. I deleted this one, then redirected the title as an editor. I was wearing my admin hat for this one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GraalOnline page

AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GraalOnline

The GraalOnline article was on wikipedia since 3 years and the content was accepted by everyone until 2 peoples decide to modify the article because of a dispute between them and the graalonline administration. A private mediation was started but this mediation was badly managed and the mediator was then involved in a private war with pro-GraalOnline people and decided that the article should be deleted, that's how the request for deletion was started.

The reasons to delete the article were changed a few time and the discussion has focused to known if GraalOnline is WP:WEB or not.

GraalOnline (http://www.graalonline.com) is a commercial game and is existing since more than 8 years now, more than 300000 people have played the game and each month 50000 people are actively playing the game. in the discussion lot of arguments have been put on the table to show that the GraalOnline article was notable, a list of 5 reviews of GraalOnline on top gaming web site have been given and should be enough to respect the notable criteria as explained in the WP:WEB#Criteria for web content :

A simple search on google for GraalOnline show more than 60000 results most links are from well known gaming site.

The reason given to delete the article is really strange to me even if i am not a experienced wikipedia User, the main reason is the counting of votes... Most keep votes (16) were argumented with lot of content when Delete votes (17) were just referring to WP:WEB with no arguments or arguments that have nothing to do with GraalOnline. Some sysops have been involved in this discussion and think that the article must be keeped and improved and not deleted.

Thanks for reviewing this decision Graal unixmad 13:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Unixmad has shown, there are plenty of resources for Graal. The whole problem was the whole critisism section of the article could not be sourced. We should be given the chance to source this article correctly, not just have it removed because a couple of people could not stop adding un-sourced material out of anger. This is very disappointing, since this article has been on the wiki for so long without a problem. Please let us have a Graalonline article here, properly sourced. It can be sourced as shown above. --Moon Goddess 13:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. While endorsing the closer's discretion to close as he did, personally I would have closed this as 'no consensus' on the basis that the reviews listed above were provided in the AfD and not adequately discussed. While there is apparently a rough majority for deletion (discounting new accounts), it depends on the subject not meeting WP:WEB, so if someone discovers several reviews which aren't from blogs or fansites, those advocating deletion need to address why they don't satisfy WP:WEB. AfD is a discussion, not a vote, and if you don't follow the discussion and respond to counterarguments then your 'vote' can be discounted. There's apparently a stupid dramafest going on in this article with people trying to add in unsourced crap that I'm not even going to attempt to understand, and if this was more borderline I might even be inclined to endorse deletion on that basis. But to me this doesn't look that borderline. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wknight94‎ did acknowledge the sources that Unixmad gave, but he was the only one. Seems everyone else ignored them like they had already made up their mind to delete the article, and the sources were not discussed further to my knowledge. Unfortunately, this whole thing started with a couple of users trying to add unsourced critisism to the article, and trying to advertise their forums throughout the article. In my opinion, the critisism section should have just been removed until it could have been sourced properly, and the rest should have either been sourced, or modified. This can still be done if some members can stop acting out of anger, and do things the right way. --Moon Goddess 16:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closer's Comments: I do need to emphasise that "by the numbers", I'd have called this no consensus as well, so the charges that I did this as a pure vote-counting exercise are quite wrong. It was my judgement that the delete voters -- most of whom were invoking WP:WEB -- did have a stronger argument than the keep votes. In a nutshell (and I'll get to those "reliable sources" up there next), the keep voters all seemed to be interested first in having a platform to either boost or denegrate GraalOnline, and second if at all in producing encyclopedic content, while the delete voters in my view were looking at the encyclopedia first. Finally, as regards those sources, first note that despite apparently long and arduous conflict over this article, none had made it into the actual article yet. Second, of the five listed, only one of them, in my view, might qualify as reliable:
  • [1] -- appears to just be marketing material.
  • [2] - a three-paragraph web review without so much as a byline
  • [3] - A longer review, no byline, I'm not sure how much editorial reputation this site has
  • [4] - This appears to be more of a blog entry than an article proper; it is hard to tell. This one may qualify as an RS.
  • [5] - Short review, in spanish, no byline I can see.
—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fourth is probably the weakest in my opinion, being a blog, next to the first one which, as you say, looks like marketing. But regarding the length of the third, PC Gamer UK, which is the magazine I read, doesn't give a lot of professionally published games more than that few paragraphs. When it comes to reviews from websites that aren't blogs or fansites, I'm inclined to consider their opinion citeable unless someone comes up with a good reason why we shouldn't - and no-one did that here. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Because of the wording in the nomination and many of the delete votes, many keep voters didn't address WP:WEB concerns. Many specifically said that was a front and they believed this was up for deletion because of a content dispute. It's very questionable whether the web policy even applies to online games. I'd say re-list with administator ruling up front about which policies apply, then let people argue it based on that. Ace of Sevens 17:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, a valid interpretation of the debate. The massively disrupted debate doesn't help. I think we should wait a while and maybe try again, perhaps with an independent editor starting a new article in userspace. Just zis Guy you know? 20:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot believe you are even taking this seriously. Graal unixmad has attempted to save his one and only advertisment from being deleted thru all channels (and finally here). Why? Because Cyberjourners is too stingy to pay for real advertising. The article was written in such a way that would have made Daniel Brandt proud of the failings of Wikipedia. Then, the saga developed when users attempted to make the article more NPOV, and the Graal administration blocked all attempts. Then came the "harrasing phone calls by the crazy frenchman" to the Wikimedia Foundation, emphasising Graal Online's feverish wish for their advertisment not to be removed. Then, when finally justice was done, and Graal Online couldn't win against the Wikipedia community, they come crying to you guys on the deletion review. Seriously, they resist anything that tarnishes their good name, and as Wikipedia policy says, [{WP:NPOV]] is crucial. Also, last time I checked, WP:NOT stated that "Wikipedia is not an advertisment". Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 01:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and to clear up source three above, which was the only one with any credibility: It is, in essence, a blog, as any can "Submit your company's own news/press". Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 01:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • One more thing: Benford's law of controversy. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 01:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Last one for now, promise. I notice Unixmad above stated that "A private mediation was started but this mediation was badly managed and the mediator was then involved in a private war with pro-GraalOnline people and decided that the article should be deleted, that's how the request for deletion was started." As the mediator, I'd like to clear a few things up. You agreed to sign the mediation and the stipulating terms that the "non-cited" material would stay for a period of 7 days and then removed if it wasn't sourced. You broke this by removing it earlier, hence the AfD for obstruction of NPOV and the failings on WP:WEB. You also claim it was "badly-managed". If you can't explain how, I am going to have your head for repeated personal attacks. I was neutral till you started screwing around with the proposed solutions (which you signed and agreed to). After your breach of agreement, I became increasingly hostile with your attitude towards my mediation, which invariably led to me believing the sources that you are an individual that is messed up in the head, and with massive people-skills problems to sort out. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 01:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete If a typical town with population 1,800 satisfies the notability criteria, why doesn't a typical MMORPG with population 50,000? And just because the article has long been POV doesn't mean that it will never be cleaned up to NPOV, or that it doesn't nevertheless contain useful information. Finally, the fact that debate about an article is less-than-civilized says nothing about the merit of the article itself. NeonMerlin 01:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You actually believe it has a "population" of 50k? I surveyed 20 people on the GraalOnline forums via PM's, and the average number of accounts owned by each person was 5.62, and I guess that considering the massive fall in populrity of GraalOnline, most of the accounts (I'm estimating 50%+ are inactive.
  • Hate to bud in, but here is my 2 cents towards this... Graal Online is simply an online game and is not a town. A town is more notable because it actually exists on this planet and you can find so many resources on information for housing/land/restaurants in that area, so their wikipedia article could easily have more sources and be IMPROVED. As for Graal Online, 50,000 accounts might certainly have been made, but once again this is not a town and people come and they go CONSTANTLY everyday. I've had previous websites with over 100,000 accounts made and they still don't meet the standards of wikipedia (Yes I've had them removed by wikipedia) and I completely understand the rulings of them. Graal online certainly does not have 50,000 active members in it's community. That's like saying the town you mentioned has a total of 50,000 people but only 1,800 live there. The official forums only have 5,000 and way more than half of those are inactive (there is actually a setting in vb board that allows the active member amount to be noticed by public so maybe they should do that for a more precise answer). As for the graal deletion ruling, I agree with it because there is no legitimate standing point for each side. A wikipedia article is not an advertising tool and to sit here and fight around if an online game should be notable is getting ridiculous as there are many other important things out there to worry about rather than a SMALL MMORPG game. The links above are barely even worth mentioning. The first one MMORPG has reviews by players and if you really want that to be a reference then you could use examples of what the players are saying about the game and the overall score, it's obvious advertising. The others are not professional reviews of the game, they sound like a blogger writing about them. If that is the case then anyone can go and make a website and write about something and claim it as a citable reference. Graal Online exists of course, but once again just because it exists doesn't mean it should have a wikipedia article. As for the points and claims of "This whole thing started over 2 people" that is completely false. There is a whole forum of people who disagree and would like to see a common base between the 2 sides and improve the article and mention issues that do exist. --Brandon Mitchell 8:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • And to further state, Unixmad's claim of 50,000 is RIDICULOUS, exaggerated, and even to the point where it's a lie. A point in which he has made over and over again despite proof to show otherwise. Why keep making this statement? The most players ever on Era was 261. If there really were 50,000 active members, that number would be significantly higher.--Kuribo 04:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion log

Out of process deletion of the above article by Freakofnurture. I can't see any valid reason for deletion, and it wasn't listed at WP:RFD. It was also a soft redirect, so it didn't have the normal problem that cross-namespaces have. --Hetar 04:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_August_5&oldid=67945676"