Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farahad

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. - Mailer Diablo 19:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Farahad

Non-notable game. Looks like a dozen Google hits, the rest refer to random people with Farahad as a proper name. Ifnord 21:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• I think it is a notable game, there is an entire community of people behind this, and it has been around for over 4 years! Games like Utopia have large articles, and I think that this encyclopedia would be a perfect place for the community (built around farahad) to contribute information for it.

If you google farahad (which SHOULD NOT BY ANY MEANS be a factor in deciding if it exists, as you're basically letting google decide what stays and what goes) the first thing that pops up _is_ this game.

The article will expand fast, I and others are currently working on it. This game has just a right to be here as Utopia has, as Utopia just has a much larger playerbase. Many people have played farahad, and right now it's playerbase is kinda low due to some circumstances, but again, many have played before. (Probably over a thousand, easily)

Hell, I figure, if this article is deleted, you may as well delete small townships of 100-300 people in Northern Ontario. Those townships aren't notable, and come up with tons of hits when you throw their name in google, yet these townships have the right to have an article exist about them.

Give this article a chance, it will develop and be widely used as a reference amongst the community. Not to mention, it's much easier to explain to (wiki)people who wanna know wtf I'm doing if I just paste them the link for this article about the game hehe--Cheevz 21:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)Cheevz

OK, Cheevz, let me try to exmplain the problem here from my perspective. In the case of small towns in wherever, the information is verifiable in the Wikipedian sense of being verifiable from trusted secondary sources (census data etc.). Minor games, especially online ones, are not verifiable by these criteria: they are generally written about only by fans (who are not neutral) and mainly in the blogsphere (which is not a trusted authority). So "non-notable" in these cases is a shorthand for subjects which, due to their limited currency, cannot be verified as being covered in a neutral and factual way. Plus we don't allow every stone to have an article, there is a threshold below which the "who would care?" test applies. Finally, WP:ISNOT either a promotional vehicle or a crystal ball. Adding articles for games which are not, as yet, widely played, looks like an attepmt to drum up interest based on speculations of future success - a sort of Wiki bootstrap. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I find more effort put into your rationale of keeping the article then you put into writing it, certainly it's longer. AfD's last for five days, you have time to improve, cite sources, and convince people (and me) to change our minds. (BTW, I nominated this article.) Ifnord 21:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, keep in mind I'm new but again, I don't want to put work into this unless it stays. Other people who contribute will probably say the same, the reason I put more "words" (and by your logic that means effort :|) is because I care about keeping this article here so I can put more resources. Don't worry, this article is a stub atm (im learning how to make it official stub, heh) --Cheevz 21:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Sorry Cheevz, I took the liberty of slightly cleaning up your comments by adding the star and colon symbols in front of the paragraphs to make them easier to differentiate. Otherwise your comments blend in with other people's. Flyboy Will 22:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - no figures for player numbers, no evidence of notability, essentially unverifiable. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and comment to the article creator: Wikipedia deletion discussions are a good opportunity to improve an article. We keep an open mind. Durova 23:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete A lot of the people working on the article are new, give them and I (I am new) a chance to write this and make it more professional. I think it's important to get player numbers published, and more statistics about this game: Atm there are two users who put their comments, which doesn't seem to wiki to me, what does everyone else think? Is it too subjective? Maybe we should have a link to player reviews and just add a fact that 'there are many players who believe this is a great game' (then throw in... but, there are also many criticisms about... <insert what I'm inserting tomorrow about it's criticisms>) etc... Nomme sayin'?----

• Delete Btw, I read the last note left previous, and I agree about neutrality/sources, and this game can get past that, with a little time for me to get sources from online game review sources. As for the "who would care" argument, I don't think it applies because there is a positive - more than a few interested getting satisfaction - and very little negative - a small amount of wikipedia article storage that is giving this article a run to see if it turns out successful, if not, I agree it should be deleted. And again, this is not a promotional tool (or crystal ball? whatever that may be)... there are better mediums for that. I sincerely believe this game does need an article explaining it, and I think it would be productive not only for the farahad-gaming community to create this article, but also for those interested in knowing what Farahad is for finding it out. If the players who thus far commented on it seemed like they're promoting it, then agian, this can be fixed (I'll coolaborate with them). Not everyone is used to the concept of wiki, so again, a little time for us/them to figure it out would be greatly appreciated (especially more than the 5 days or so granted by the deletion process)----

• Comments without "vote" - 1) Player testminonials tend to help delete an article; third-party references tend to help keep it (gaming blogs connected to fans of the game fall in the first category, not the second); 2) Wikipeda is not a crystal ball (either the game is successful or notable now or it isn't), and because of that, it must deal with the here and now; 3) Keep rewriting the article, but if it smells of self-promotion and reeks of POV, it will be deleted; 4) No matter the final result of this AfD, your hard work in good faith is always appreciated here; 5) To give more weight to your comments, please sign them with ~~~~. B.Wind 18:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. I can find hardly anything about this game while Utopia has scads of references to it. You can't use Wikipedia to market something; come back after it's become popular and we'll be just begging to have an article for it. You can call me Al 18:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Again, it doesn't matter if it's notable. It is there and has been there for a long time. Just as many small northern Ontario towns have articles concenring them, yet these towns aren't notable by any means. Yet they exist, and have the right to. Regarding references/player opinion: I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, recently, after 4 years of active involvement in this game, I quit because the game creator made a completely irrational decision to restart the game. Anyways, enough of that boring talk: I vote for this articles deletion as I won't be contributing to it any more (0 interest) and the people I know who will be contributing have no concept of wikipedia in them, and do regard it as a marketing tool (even though I didn't). You can see this by looking at the farahad page, where it marks their player names and a piece of "opinion" (yuck) about the game. Soooo subjective. *Shivers* Sorry for wasting your time, I'll write an article about my scarce hometown instead. (Even though the cows overpopulate the people, it's apparently notable) 209.226.141.116 21:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Flyboy Will. If the consensus is to keep then I strongly recommend a {{cleanup-rewrite}} tag. Stifle 00:26, 26 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.