Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borderlands rpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 11:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Borderlands rpg

A non-notable fan group of Star Trek. Listed along with authorised retail Star Trek games.--PatCheng 03:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as spamming. They even put their banner in, so it's obviously an ad. Brian G. Crawford 03:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Blatant ad for nn RPG. Fan1967 03:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn, adv. Bucketsofg 03:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn, ad. --Terence Ong 05:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Wait a second. I went online and found a group that split off from us in the same category, called "Quadrant Delta" So I thought, oh, we'll that's cool, if they have a home here, then we should too..... Now why the heck are they okay, and we're not? There are also sites like UCIP up under Star Trek role-playing games that have been there for years. —This unsigned comment is by Truemper (talk • contribs) .

You'd get a much better reception if the page wasn't blatant advertising, I expect, and made notability clearer (eg, noting the number of users, noting any media attention, more history, etc). --Fuzzie (talk) 10:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, it's a Star Trek -related article. No, wait, I meant to say delete, advertisement for an RPG group. JIP | Talk 15:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quadrant Delta MLA 16:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Well it's going back up if you delete it. I'll change the content to be more wiki-friendly, but there is no reason at all why we shouldn't have a place here. If you look at categories like: Star Trek games | Star Trek role-playing games | Science fiction role-playing games | Fan fiction | Star Trek fan fiction, they are ALL personal games. If there is something wrong with posting these kind of sites up then you may as well delete those entire categories, because that's exactly what they are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Truemper (talk • contribs).
• Delete nn Percy Snoodle 12:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, blatant advertising/spam. --Fuzzie (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• I've been warned now that I had better not re-add my article, because admin can delete it on sight... but I will be re-adding it........ I'll fix up the content so that it doesn't seem like an advertisement, and instead gives more of a historical look at Trek based Role playing on the Internet, but I KNOW that Borderlands has a place here. If you look at the debate around Bravo-Fleet being on the Wiki, then that's all you need to hear to know that Borderlands belongs also. Bravo-Fleet is unique because of it's size, but Borderlands is more notable because of age. We started in 1993 - a full 5 years before Bravo Fleet, and well before any other documented Trek RPG out there. We have a history that is more relevant to gaming than Bravo Fleet, and if I get deleted after highlighting that history then I'm going to demand that every other RPG documented on Wikipedia be removed as well. I admit that the current article content isn't anything special, it was a cut and paste job from our homepage just to have something up, but we do have relevance, and I will be putting Borderlands back up again when I compile that information, despite threats......... Would it kill you to offer suggestions to FIX content? - Rather than just acting like freaking Wiki-Nazis. —This unsigned comment was added by Truemper (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment. The problem isn't that the article is bad. The problem is that the fan club isn't notable enough as yet to have an article on Wikipedia. --Rory096 01:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • So tell me, what makes the fan club notable?... Are you telling me that being the longest standing game on the Internet isn't notable enough?........ What is it about Bravo Fleet that makes it more notable, other than size? We intentionally chose a different niche than Bravo Fleet, we want quality, not quantity, so that disqualifies us? How about games like UCIP that have NO notability, but didn't get hammered by this crap?... Like I said before, the categories: Star Trek games | Star Trek role-playing games | Science fiction role-playing games | Fan fiction | Star Trek fan fiction are all full of less notable clubs than Borderlands..... That's all those categories have at all! I know I'm not supposed to be offended by the delete request, but how can I *not* be when so much clearly non-notable crap is all over the place, and a club that built itself off of our history in gaming gets put up for deletion, but isn't deleted because of popular support. We are the ancestry of these categories, we deserve a place here, but somehow we're the ones that get singled out for deletion and threatened not to try posting up better information.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.