Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DarkWars.org

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, after minus sockpuppet votes. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 00:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DarkWars.org

Delete, not notable, no indication of importance in article, WP:NOT/WP:Web Dbchip 08:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• You sure you got the right name there? That page doesn't even have a delete history. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
  • Fixed. In such cases check the discussion article name. Gazpacho
• Delete non-notable MUD. Gazpacho 09:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

*Keep - thousands of users. Not a MUD - its a graphical game. See their webpage here [1]. Passes google test with 952 hits, and seems to pass WP:WEB, although Alexa's ranking of 167,279 looks poorly. Has enough players though to assert notoriety. Is not a webpage and hence WP:WEB does not directly apply. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• del nonnotable 300 unique hits, none of them with a review. Severe wikipedia:Verifiability problem. mikka (t) 11:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I already voted, but I did link to their actual web page, and there are a lot of reviews available for them that are independent. 309 unique google hits actually, if we are being 100% accurate. You can choose to vote delete if you like, but I just disagree with you. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I am sorry, but which of these does not look like a review to you? [2], [3], [4], [5] (and a lot of others) all look like reviews to me. No problem with verifiability. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • All of them. The first merely tells us that someone with a pseudonym claims to have played something called "darkwars" and tells us nothing about either. The second is a web directory listing on a self-submission web site (that is even called a "games directory"). The third is a banner advertisement collection that doesn't even mention Darkwars at all. And the fourth is an anonymous web discussion forum posting, a classic example of what is not a reliable source, that tells us to "ask mickey he shud be in first page of world ranks and he wil teach you how to play it". Please familiarize yourself with the concept of reliable sources. This is not the first time that you've cited anonymous discussion forum posts as purported sources. Uncle G 15:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
      • What you meant to say was: this is not the first time you've been abused because of making a valid argument. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 19:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
        • What I meant to say was what I actually wrote. No-one has abused you, here or elsewhere. Uncle G 16:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - whilst I most definitely do not appreciate the comments from Uncle G, it led me to do more research. I checked. http://www.tucows.com/, http://www.download.com/, http://www.shareware.com/ and http://www.cnet.com/, all of whom you would expect to have a review about it if its claims to notoriety were true. They all came up completely empty. And, whilst there are reviews for "Dark Wars" that is in fact referring to something to do with Star wars and is irrelevant. It seems that the web site in question is guilty of link spam. Nonetheless, I don't think that abuse such as that from Uncle G is really required. No, you shouldn't be writing to me 4 times pushing your point of view across. It's not something that you "have" to do either. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 20:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Pasting this from Talk:Darkwars: don't delete this article, i will expand this article very soon!!! 71.240.141.128 03:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• I'd really like to keep it, being pretty inclusionist and having a pretty low bar for notability, but there just doesn't seem to be evidence of this game being notable, or even of it being mentioned anywhere not apparently spammed by the game creator themselves. A promise of article expansion by some anon editor isn't enough to keep it, when even the person who originally voted to keep has changed his mind. Delete. *Dan T.* 22:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The Indpentdent Conservative 03:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• I don't see why you should delete it. If you can't find it in google then I have no clue what you are doing wrong. Just type "darkwars" and hit enter. If it has to do with the content of the article I'll come back to make sure it adheres to proper English and worthwhile content.--Anime2000z 10:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Zordrac. Stifle 14:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This page was moved, twice, by User:Suril.amin. I know I'm breaking WP:AGF here, but I suspect foul play. A second AfD discussion has begun at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DarkWars.org. Would someone who knows how merge the two discussions do so? Saberwyn - 06:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with you that it was likely foul play. I think that the page should be deleted post-haste. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 19:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Article was tagged for {{afd}} by User:Dbchip [6], but no discussion page was created. A few hours ago, User:Suril.amin created a page from the red link and entered an unsigned vote which is preserved below. Listing it now with no vote. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 06:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This site was once featured on the news... Though I have no clue where I could find the article.--What does this do? 09:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • User:Anime2000z, whose comment this is, has no edits except to the article and its deletion discussions. He also already voted above. —Cryptic (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep do not delete, this article is getting bigger by the minute!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Suril.amin (talk • contribs) 20:42, December 5, 2005.
  • User:Suril.amin already voted above, signing as "The Indpentdent Conservative". —Cryptic (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Alexa ranking of 167,268 and falling. Google has only two unique pages linking in. There appears to be no media attention, at least according to my crude Google search. No way to determine number of players without signing up, which I refuse to do. Therefore, this article fails the proposed guidelines at WP:WEB.

  In addition, there is no information in the article demonstrating how this online game is different to any others of its kind. Saberwyn - 06:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• In the interest of fair play, I have copied the 'votes' (at least thats what I think they are) from the article's talkpage and pasted them below. Saberwyn - 06:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't delete this article on Darkwars!!! Man, this article is providing so much info on it and will soon cover everything there is to know on it! Sahil.amin 02:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmmm... Deleting would probably not be the best idea. If he wants to write about it, I will come back through and edit it for grammar and spelling and try to make sure it only contains information pertinent to the game.--Anime2000z 10:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • don't delete this article, i will expand this article very soon!!! 71.240.141.128 03:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I am working on expanding this article. 71.240.141.128 03:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I am also expanding this article, on the darkwars forum the link to this article was posted, many darkwars members are working on expanding it. The Indpentdent Conservative 03:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Please note that a discussion page was created. This article was originally named Darkwars, and the existing AFD discussion is still open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darkwars. This is why one should not rename articles being discussed unless one is careful and follows the instructions in the Guide to deletion. Uncle G 06:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The move appears to have been made by User:Suril.amin, one of the contributors to the article. Its bad to not assume good faith, but I suspect foul play. Saberwyn - 06:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Special:Contributions/Suril.amin strongly indicates that it was not malice, but simply inexperience. Uncle G 07:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm still suspicious about the reasons behind the move, but will not let that influence my decisions regarding the keep or delete of this article. Saberwyn - 07:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Despite how instrumental it may be to the daily lives of some people, it is not notable enough for inclusion at wikipedia. Flyboy Will 08:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • • • • • COMBINE THE 2 AFDS! Or remove one of the AFds, or whatever needs to be done. This is just too confusing. Since both look like being deleted, why not just consider that a consensus has been reached and delete them? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete poor Alexa rank, no verifiability besides the voter above who says rather vaguely it was "once featured on the news". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Starblind. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 17:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. —Cryptic (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep comeon on guys, just look at this page's discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.240.141.128 (talk • contribs) 21:28, December 6, 2005 (UTC).
• Keep this article!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.14.13.3 (talk • contribs) 18:58, December 7, 2005 (UTC).
• KEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP THIS ARTICLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.54.132.88 (talk • contribs) 23:52, December 7, 2005.
• Delete ugh. Eusebeus 14:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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.