Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AXL's TFC
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] AXL's TFC
Advertising/Vanity, I wish they directed their efforts on improving the TF articles on Wikipedia instead. Delete --Slux 17:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This is explaining two long running servers and their history (in progress). Not only is it explaining the uniqueness of the servers and how it is democratic, but the way the users have gathered together to form a group of people that interact outside of an online game through the use of the forums mentioned. If you think showing the IPs is that we are trying to "advertise" then we will take them off. What we are trying to show is a history of the group not try push ourselves on the masses. Also, you say "I wish they directed their efforts on improving the TF articles". Users that are editting this have and will continue working on those. You may want to check the history of both and compare users before making statements like that, which are false. Keep --Cassius 17:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It might be necessary to remove the IP addresses and IRC channels. However, this article is not meant to be an advertising tool, or one of vanity. Axl's TFC is a developed community with a unique history, and this article is intended to articulate that history and how it has affected the game on which it is based. Keep Nufy8 18:03, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think this is a great arcticle which purpose does not fit advertising nor vanity. It merely shows what Axl's TFC is about, its history, its uniqueness. I wouldn't mind missing the IP addresses, but a link to the official website seems in place. I say we keep this topic, for the critisism is not accurate. Keep Shino 19:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment, this is Shino's first and, so far, only edit.
- You do know that people can help wikipedia without actually having a username. May not be this his/her first edit, may just know that have to actually have an account to vote to keep this article. --Cassius
- Comment: [1]. Mrwojo 19:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Well, at least someone over on those forums has good enough sense to discourage sockpuppets, although I see we've already got two. android↔talk 19:30, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia's sockpuppet policy, a sockpuppet is defined as "an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name." Everyone who has voted is each a separate person, and therefore no aliases or sockpuppets have been used. — unsigned comment by Nufy8
- We also use the term sockpuppet here on VfD to refer to those low-edit or new users that show up solely to defend one article. android↔talk 19:54, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- #1 So you are making policies yourself now? Shouldn't you go by the policy of the site that you are on, not things you make up? #2 - You are basing this off the posts they have made using a username, I have made changes without a username up until this point, but I decided to start using a username, which do not show other contributions I have made. --Cassius
- I'm not making anything up, just describing standard practice around here. android↔talk 20:09, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- So I can break policy, as long as it's standard practice? --Cassius
- What are you talking about? Who's "breaking policy?" android↔talk 20:15, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia's sockpuppet policy, a sockpuppet is defined as "an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name." Everyone who has voted is each a separate person, and therefore no aliases or sockpuppets have been used. - That's the policy, changing the definition to the "standard practice" versus what the policy says is breaking policy. --Cassius
- As I've already mentioned, we use a slightly different definition of sockpuppet on VfD than does Wikipedia at large. I fail to see how this is "breaking policy," but your point is a minor quibble, at best. The meaning of my initial point doesn't change whether I say "sockpuppets" or "low-edit or new users." android↔talk 20:28, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- And you have no way of knowing how many posts a user has actually made. A username maybe, but not a user. --Cassius
- As I've already mentioned, we use a slightly different definition of sockpuppet on VfD than does Wikipedia at large. I fail to see how this is "breaking policy," but your point is a minor quibble, at best. The meaning of my initial point doesn't change whether I say "sockpuppets" or "low-edit or new users." android↔talk 20:28, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia's sockpuppet policy, a sockpuppet is defined as "an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name." Everyone who has voted is each a separate person, and therefore no aliases or sockpuppets have been used. - That's the policy, changing the definition to the "standard practice" versus what the policy says is breaking policy. --Cassius
- What are you talking about? Who's "breaking policy?" android↔talk 20:15, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- So I can break policy, as long as it's standard practice? --Cassius
- I'm not making anything up, just describing standard practice around here. android↔talk 20:09, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- #1 So you are making policies yourself now? Shouldn't you go by the policy of the site that you are on, not things you make up? #2 - You are basing this off the posts they have made using a username, I have made changes without a username up until this point, but I decided to start using a username, which do not show other contributions I have made. --Cassius
- We also use the term sockpuppet here on VfD to refer to those low-edit or new users that show up solely to defend one article. android↔talk 19:54, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia's sockpuppet policy, a sockpuppet is defined as "an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name." Everyone who has voted is each a separate person, and therefore no aliases or sockpuppets have been used. — unsigned comment by Nufy8
- Well, at least someone over on those forums has good enough sense to discourage sockpuppets, although I see we've already got two. android↔talk 19:30, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable, and as evidenced by Mrwojo's link, vanity. android↔talk 19:30, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- I fail to see how this forum thread that notifies the community of the article constitutes evidence of vanity. — unsigned comment by Nufy8
- A member of said community created the article. That's pretty much the definition of vanity. android↔talk 19:54, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- The whole purpose of the forum thread was to get community members to help in the process of editing the article so that it would be as professional and noteworthy as possible.
- You may want to read the definition of Vanity again. Wikipedia Policy Quote: "Furthermore, it should be noted that an article is not a "vanity" page simply because it was written by its subject." --Cassius
- I'm using the definition of vanity from WP:GVFD. android↔talk 20:14, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, didn't see a definition there, but there was the definition of what I put here: Wikipedia:Vanity_page. --Cassius
- I'm using the definition of vanity from WP:GVFD. android↔talk 20:14, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- A member of said community created the article. That's pretty much the definition of vanity. android↔talk 19:54, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- I fail to see how this forum thread that notifies the community of the article constitutes evidence of vanity. — unsigned comment by Nufy8
- Delete Not notable, vanity Dsmdgold 19:35, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Weak delete, gamecruft, not yet persuaded that this game community forum is more notable than dozens or hundreds of others. The Radio KoL stuff referenced in a few of today's other VfD's shows more evidence of pioneering extra-game interaction related to a game than anything I see in the article or the forum. Labelling a gamers' forum "democratic" is hardly groundbreaking. Wikipedia is not a gamers' guide nor a web directory. Barno 20:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, vaNNity. Radiant_* 21:11, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. By my personal definition, any article which requires the creation of multiple sock puppet accounts to vote "keep" fails to establish its own notability. RickK 21:34, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't see myself as a sock puppet. I just never had to sign up for anything on Wikipedia. My first comment has to start somewhere! I think there is nothing wrong with this article. I don't see why people are making a big fuss out of this. Shino 10:47, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as gamecruft. Shino, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you post many encyclopedic articles while you are here. This is not one. You'll learn to tell the difference pretty quickly if you stick around on VfD! --Halidecyphon 21:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable. —Markaci 2005-04-7 T 23:48 Z
- Delete. Non notable vanity. Votes by users with small edit history don't count. Dave the Red (talk) 01:57, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Would be better as an off-site homepage. Votes by users other than me don't count. Asriel86 06:10, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Article doesn't establish noticeability Lectonar 07:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable. Dave, VfD's not about a vote "count," it's about the discussion and attempt to reach a consensus. Sock puppets aside, I think the validity of the arguments that a user brings to the debate are more important than the size of his edit history. —Miles (Talk) 21:59, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
- delete absent clear evidence of influence in the gaming community Mozzerati 19:35, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
- Delete: not notable, but probably well-intentioned. Wikilawyering by previously unseen editors doesn't help this article's cause, either. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 23:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Article does not establish notability. --NormanEinstein 01:50, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
