Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyber Slam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 22:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cyber Slam

A non-notable subsection of an IGN web forum, dedicated to organising Halo tournaments in Australia. Was originally tagged for proposed deletion, but the contributing IP removed the tag. Proto||type 09:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nn web forum, vanity. --Terence Ong 10:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete While this is better than the average webforum article, it needs references from verifiable sources to meet WP:WEB. If these can be found, I will look at changing my vote. Keep. This article now has verifiable references therefore meeting WP:WEB. Well done to those people who have improved it.Capitalistroadster 11:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • For a start, CBN Media, the owners of the website in question (Cyber Slam), which is a lot more than the forum section pictured has nothing at all to do with IGN. Please at least get the facts straight if you wish to flag an item for deletion. Secondly, it takes time to make a great Wiki entry (for some us anyway). I'm learning as I go but at the moment all I'm noticing is people who are very keen to get rid of new content and discourage people from contribiting. Third point, there are a number of people on the same IP as me, my guess is one of them wrongly removed the original 'flaged for deletion' item. On a fourth point there are many website Wiki entires with a lot less content and many with out-dated and very nn content. While this point may not be a valid argument to some people, it does make you wonder why its hard to get new stuff on Wikipedia when the delete happy people seem unable to find anything unless it is new. With more time to add the notable content, I'm sure people will reconsider the entry (again, some of us do not have as much free time as others). Sixth point, If the delete happy people read the Cyber Slam entry they would have noticed there is more to Cyber Slam than just a forum. The delete vote above by Capitalistroadster referers to webforum which implies a skim of the content and a click on the image. The entry by Terenceong1992 is the same and states nn web forum, again clearly someone who did not even read the entry. Tigger-oN 12:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB Computerjoe 12:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete there are two claims of notability. Firstly, that it is a notable web forum - I don't see evidence currently that supports this claim. Secondly that it is a notable organiser of FPS tournaments. Capitalistroadster's point refers to the need to verify this information. If either of these claims are verified by independent sources then that would probably satisfy the notability criterion and I'd change my vote to Keep. As it is, the article currently says that Cyber Slam is a forum for buddies to hang out at and is an organiser of some FPS tourneys. On the process, it isn't wrong to remove the Prod tag - it should come with an explanation as to why it is being removed. That tag is different to the AfD tag that is currently on the article which wikipedia process does not approve of removing, there's no blame attached here. MLA 12:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep I said that I'd change my vote if the sourcing happened and the emphasis of the article reflected something notable and I have. Good job by the editors of this article, much better than those who just complain about their article being deleted and do nothing to improve it. MLA 17:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Update - The Cyber Slam entry has been updated. This is far from complete, however I just throught I would inform people. Tigger-oN 00:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I think a good job has been done with the update in emphasizing the notability of this place and adding references. NickelShoe 00:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable forumcruft. -- Krash (Talk) 16:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Once again we see a very clear delete vote from some one that has not even read the entry, and if they have, feel that a site dedicated to running and hosting online Tournaments in Australia can be classified in one word as forumcruft, a word that does NOT appear on Wikipedia, nor could dictionary.com find an entry for it. Clearly this user has no intentions of leaving a valid delete reason, but is more than happy to delete an entry from newbie. I would like to ask that Krash's vote be seen as a non-vote on the grounds that forumcruft is not a word. Tigger-oN 22:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Please reconsider. I have been doing some research and I now understand a little bit more of the Wiki culture. While every effort was made to make the Cyber Slam entry valid as far as the Wiki guidelines, I can't help but think there is something drastically wrong with the deletion process.
  1. The user/admin Proto flagged Cyber Slam as a non-notable subsection of an IGN web forum, dedicated to organising Halo tournaments in Australia. Cyber Slam has nothing at all to do with IGN and while Cyber Slam has organised Halo PC events, it has also done a LOT more for online gaming in Australia. Key word, Australia, which has a much smaller population than the UK or USA, so the impact on a global scale may make Cyber Slam appear as non-notable. Australia wide however we are known. The user/admin Proto is also a member of AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD. 'On a personal level, there is a questionable joke on the Proto user page. Something I find somewhat offensive and surprising for a Wikipedia Admin.
  2. The user/admin, Terenceong1992 stated the reason for deletion - nn web forum, vanity. Terenceong1992 is currently on a Wikibreak, so it is unlikely this 13yr old Singaporean has seen the changes that have been made.
  3. The user/Admin, Computerjoe stated that Cyber Slam did not meet the WP:WEB standard. The entry has been updated since then. If there are now any sections that the Cyber Slam entry is weak on, please inform me so I can source the content from Cyber Slam staff and players.
  4. I have also been looking into vanity (in relation to Wiki entries) and the use of fourmcruft and I'm guessing the Cyber Slam entry would come across as vanity to many people outside of the Gaming community of Australia. It is a real shame very few of the online Gaming community of Australia are not also Wiki Admins. These people would be the real judge as to how notable Cyber Slam is, at least in Australia.

I've noticed heaps of Wiki entries that seem to really be nn in comparison to the Cyber Slam one. I do totally understand that just because there are invalid entries does not mean there should be more invalid entires. It just seems to me that some people are keen to delete new stuff because it is so much easier to find. Here is a very short list that took all of 5 minutes (I've noticed heaps more, I just can't remember them!):

If the Cyber Slam entry is to be delete, I at least understand a lot more about Wikipedia process and how the Wikipedians Admins work. Tigger-oN 10:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment You've done a good job updating the article. Please assume good faith regarding AFD discussion - Terence Ong is a very experienced AfD debator for instance. There is a tendency to bias in favour of internet/gaming articles on wikipedia in my opinion so there has to be something that makes the article stand out as notable which I think you've achieved. A couple of votes have changed to keep as a result of your good work and at present, I'd be surprised if the end result was delete. Of those you've listed, Fileplanet is notable in my opinion but I haven't heard of the rest. If you want to list any of them for deletion then you should feel free. MLA 17:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Sorry, even with the references it doesn't met WP:WEB. The SMH reference makes only the slightest passing reference, the 2nd one is coverage about a tournament, the 3rd is an online entry form!, the 4th is simply information about ACON 5 event, the 5th an opinion piece by someone clearly not independent (he later became involved in running this event) and the 6th is a info piece which is clearly sourced from Cyber Slam. Cursive 12:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Response to Cursive I don't see how coverage of a Cyber Slam Tournament on free-to-air television could be seen as invalid at all! To get any coverage of any tournament on TV can only be seen as notable. The opinion piece was from someone independent at the time the article was published. Part of what makes Cyber Slam interesting is the fact that the players and the public can and do get involved. Cyber Slam invited Mike Longley to assist with the Final because he had such strong opinions. There are more References, however (sadly) its taking time to get them from the Cyber Slam staff. Tigger-oN 12:06, 4 March 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Cyber_Slam_d3e7.html"