Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ASOG (Arab Special Operations Group)

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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ASOG (Arab Special Operations Group)

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion among Wikipedia's editors. The aim is to reach a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia, using Wikipedia's policies as the benchmark. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or meatpuppetry.

You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy.

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

"ASOG is a fictional Group in the Project Reality Tournament". Ghits for project reality tournament seem to point to it being a fictional campaign within Battlefield 2. Article is WP:NN as gamecruft that does not meet WP:WEB. Alphachimp talk 13:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

  • why —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASOGMaverick (talk • contribs)
  • I can't post here for some reason so I had to edit!

http://tournament.realitymod.com/index.php shows >600 members http://realitymod.com/forum/index.php shows over 35000 hits to the tournament website from that link alone Also that site has over 7000 members —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASOGMaverick (talk • contribs)

  • Delete possibly a Walled Garden, but there is no indiction of satisfying WP:WEB. Yanksox 13:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete A wiki already exists for the mod and is not up for deletion. A large numebr of those involved with the mod play in the tournament. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Reality_(Mod) ASOGMaverick 16:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Please Note I didn't ask that poster to post. I have been civil - if confused - throughout! ASOGMaverick 16:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Question I quote wiki Policy : 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.[7] how does this wiki : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Reality_(Mod) fulfill this criteria and my wiki not? As I understand it a wiki only has to fulfil one of the criteria outlined hereWP:WEB to be seen as Notable. I would move that this wiki is notable as a direct result of that Project Reality wiki and also general interest citing previously referenced figures. Also note that the 21CW tournament has a wiki [[1]] ASOGMaverick 16:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. Project Reality (Mod) may also need to be AFD'ed, as that article reads like a strategy guide, which Wikipedia is not. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Question Why don't you respond to an argument that is perhaps valid? I read somewhere that the basis for deletion is not the number of people sayting 'delete' or 'it fails WEB' etc but the argument and the corrrectness fo that argument. To this end I find it highly bizarre nobody responds to my argument. Perhaps because it is too valid?ASOGMaverick 10:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    Comment. First off, please indent your comments using ":". It makes reading this thing a whole lot easier. I would be careful that you don't start wikilawyering. Project Reality is not a notable online publisher, and does not distribute the content of ASOG through its site. ASOG is a limited group of people who play using that mod. Alphachimp talk 13:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    RetortI understand what you are saying and thank you for your advice - I often find it hard to argue cogently without using 'Legaleeze' as it is known. I would thus like to take a different approach. TBF2 (Total Battlefield 2) is the leading authority on BF2. Thus I would take their word as 'credible'. To this end i would point you to this post: http://www.totalbf2.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1000117 , made by the owner of the site - who also happens to be involved with IS - who run tournaments across the internet which involve thousands of players. Again a notable source. Further more Planet Battlefield, another very notable source for BF2 information noted the PR Tournament (of which ASOG is at least half). http://planetbattlefield.gamespy.com/pagetools/pagetools.php?act=printnews&id=83266 . BF1942 Match also commented on the commencement of the tournament http://www.bf1942match.com/view.news.php?id=551 . Also in Germany the Tournament is recognised. http://bf2.4players.de:1045/index.php?area=1&p=news&newsid=556&koobi=faf5933f9713511bbb1f83f6888985bc . ABR - a group recently consulted by DICE and EA (the companies responsible for creating BF2) - also referenc ethe tournament on numerous occasions. http://www.battlefieldranking.net/4/24.html . Battlefield Files also references PR Tournament. http://battlefield2.filefront.com/news/Project_Reality_Tournament_Campaign_2_Signups;27357 . Another site is here http://www.infragiliscommunity.com/ . By this time I am very bored of finding so many links simply by GHITS for "Project Reality Tournament". I do however recognise there is an argument that states ASOG is only a part of the tournament and thus is perhaps a 'closed garden'. To argue against that I would state that anybody who is interested in the tournament (and many are - as I established above) have to be interested in both teams! Otherwise there would be no tournament! Thus the figures for memebership of the sites show popularity again. I hope this has laid out my case more clearly. ASOGMaverick 18:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as I don't see how this is relevant to anything outside of the video game. Arguments that the article established notability via WP:WEB, while I appreciate their fervor, fail. You quote the passage: "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." however, I don't see how the article conforms to this. What independant site distributes your content? --Aguerriero (talk) 20:32, 10 July 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.