Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMFA Manager

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 was delete as meeting WP:WEB was not really demonstrated, and is certainly not asserted in the current article. W.marsh 15:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AMFA Manager

AMFA Manager (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Fails WP:V and WP:RS has no sources beyond primary source. Quirex 19:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - no independent sources. Possible spam. "Hundreds" are playing "worldwide" and "It's in its 12th season" (when the article stated a June 2005 release) indicate very limited notability at best, most likely failing WP:SOFTWARE.B.Wind 00:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep article has now been revised, article IS NOT spam, site IS NOT failing, high season number is only due to the seasons passing once every 40 days, please re-read and make new assesment Markb75 17:46, 3 December 2006 (GMT)
  • I reread it and it still fails WP:V and WP:RS. It has no sources and thus fails WP:WEB. Please go review the requirements in WP:WEB and see that no one has covered this website, it hasn't been awarded anything significant and no one has based their work on this work. --Quirex 19:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I also reread it, and none of the changes address my objections. If there are sources independent of the website, they must be placed in the article itself. Also I didn't say that the website itself "is failing", but that it is failing a notability guideline of Wikipedia (WP:SOFTWARE), but articles for websites involving thousands of participants have not survived AfD; so one that mentions "hundreds" is on unsure footing as it is... and, as Quirex pointed out below, it has a serious problem with WP:WEB. Wikipedia cannot be used to promote something; it can be used only to reflect the notability that is already there.B.Wind 00:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not assert notability in any way. Fails WP:WEB. Over 300 registered users? That's hardly a lot. --Lijnema 18:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • just a quick search on the net revealed a published article on www.pc.gamezone.com and also the site is covered in wikihow! Independant sources as requested, can you please restore my revisions now.

Thank you for the sarcastic comment about the number of players, not exactly constructive, sites have to start somewhere and what about your own guidelines here? something about not biting the newcomers?, Markb75 20:20 3 December 2006 (GMT)

Not sure why you would feel bitten by the fact that I state that 300 registered users for a game isn't a lot. Unless you're one of the creators/owners of the game, in which case you should actually stay away from editing the article, since that would be a clear conflict of interests. --Lijnema 20:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • So does this meet WP:WEB with these 2 references?
  • 1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. Maybe
  • We don't have multiple non-trivial references. The 2nd reference is trivial. The first one belongs to soccer gaming which lacks a wikipedia page, and has an alexa ranking of 44,904. Is this a news site, a review site or a blog. I'm really not sure. Is the reviewing site notable? I don't know.
  • 2. The website or content has won a notable independent award from either a publication or organisation. No
  • 3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. No
--Quirex 23:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not suggesting that these links are the extent of the coverage, just two that I found. I would however suggest reading the 2nd one, as it is probably less trivial than the first including a link to an interview with a developer of the game.

Also I think it worth mentioning that "Web-specific content is notable if it meets any one of the criteria" and not necessarily all 3. Slipperking 11:35 4 December 2006 (GMT)

  • Keep because doubtful.DGG 01:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No notability The Fox Man of Fire 16:35, 6 December 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.