Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAEE

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, minus sockpuppet votes. (2k, 5d) - Mailer Diablo 17:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PAEE

Spanish text adventure, article apparently created by the game's author. Doesn't seem very notable. Its original Spanish version, es:PAEE, is also on Articles for Deletion at the Spanish Wikipedia, with what seems like 8 votes for deletion and 6 votes for keeping. Weak delete unless notability can be established. — JIP | Talk 11:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• delete unless evidence of notability beyond what is in the current version of the article is provided. Googling the full name, "Primera Aventura Experimental y Extraña" shows a total of 8 pages, of which 1 is our article and 3 are by the game's author; of the 4 remaining, 1 is a page about the game, 2 each have a single link to that page about the game, and the 1 left has a single sentence about it. -- AJR | Talk 01:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep. First of all, I'm the one who've created this english article on the first place, and also fixed the spanish one (which sucked) to be closer to meeting wikipedia's criteria. So let's make it clear: I am _not_ the author of the game. Now, why do I think it should be kept? Or rather... why did I place this here on the first place? Because I think it's a notable game on the (not to offend anybody) very small world of amateur spanish-language text adventure games genre, and it's also remarkable to how many computer languages has been rewritten, and for how many platforms it has been compiled.Rvalles 01:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • You are probably very out of touch with a current IF community. There is a lot of Spanish IF games. Your one is not notable a bit.  Grue  20:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Your one? This game is not mine in any way, and I've been clear about that in the parent post. Please take your time to read what I say before trying answering to me.Rvalles 02:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is verifiable, and potentially useful for the reason that Rvalles spells out. We gain nothing by deleting this, and loose information that someone interested in text adventures might want. Trollderella 01:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think like Rvalles: we don't gain anything erasing it. KiBo 02:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC) (only edit)
• Delete. Google demonstrates a singular lack of notability, and Wikipedia is not a collection of random information. Actually, what we gain by deleting it is a little more confidence on the part of our users that we are discriminating in the information we take in. Denni☯ 04:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The argument for deletion as read above states that the article should be deleted because "googling" for the article topic results in few webpage results. It seems to me that deleting this article from wikipedia would only resolve in less information being available about this game. It also appears that wikipedia is one of the few locations that hosts any english text about this game. Making the english article very valuable to the internet as a whole. It doesn't appear wikipedia has anything to gain from the deletion of this article except for maybe some small drive space. If wikipedia only hosted information that could be found other places that would make wikipedia less of a resource to everyone. JonathanW 04:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC) (sockpuppet)
  • comment One of the basic principles of Wikipedia is that conent needs to be verifiable, that is, that Wikipedia does only host information that can be found in other places. If Wikipedia is to be a reliable encyclopeadia, then readers need to be able to check the accuracy of our content, which means that there need to be external sources for our information. -- AJR | Talk 11:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and there are a few, you only need one to verify it - it's not about how many times you can verifiy it. Trollderella 17:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Correct and unique information of course should be saved. Cyberakuma 05:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC) (only edit)
• Delete There are dozens of text adventures produced each year, in Spanish as well. I don't see how this one is notable. Notice also the sockpuppets above.  Grue  20:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppets? Do you have reasons to think so? Explain them to us.Rvalles 01:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Dozens a year, good grief. How will we cope! Trollderella 23:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Fine, if this one survives, I'm creating an article about my game, which finished a whopping 29th place in IFComp 2004.  Grue  21:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Stack Overflow? I get about 100 Google hits, I wouldn't object to a brief article about it, although it might be better off being merged into an article on the 2004 IFComp (which we don't have yet) although frankly I wonder how much verifiable material there's going to be about it without original research - let's get to work though! Trollderella 17:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable (therefore unencyclopedic) + sockpuppet abuse. Wikipedia gains a higher level of quality as a body of knowledge by deletion of non-notable material. Bwithh 02:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

No, it just gets less material. Trollderella 20:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • I believe our credibility is called into question by some when they find articles that are clearly non-encyclopedic. Recall that one thing Wikipedia is not is is an indiscriminate collection of information. Denni☯ 02:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, this isn't indiscriminate. Also, what is appropriate for an encyclopedia is a subjective decision. Our credability is called into question when we delete valid topics because we are not interested in them. Trollderella 17:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete "all of that by the cooperation of tens of people." - indicates to me that this is a minor, non-notable project CDC (talk) 18:44, 3 November 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.