Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AdventureQuest

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 keep the main AdventureQuest article, as notability of the game was not contested, and delete the remaining sub-pages. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AdventureQuest

Non-notable online game and associated concepts. Also nominated:

• Mogliween (in-game holiday)
• Galanoth (in-game character)
• Artix von Krieger (in-game character)
• Undead assault (in-game minigame)

Game itself fails WP:WEB, though alexa rank of 1656 isn't far off inclusion; but the concept articles are definitely non-notable. Percy Snoodle 15:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete the in-game stuff, Abstain the game itself; ten minutes of poking through Google + ten minutes of poking the website yields zero decent secondary sources. Nifboy 15:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete all secondary articles, Weak Keep main game article. The game itself is surprisingly popular for how mediocre and simplistic it seems. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 15:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Coverage of main game is an unreferenced walkthrough with zero context about importance, popularity etc save for section on "criticism". It probably has just about enough popularity to stay but without verification and references I'll abstain. Strong Delete on the sub-pages, at most worthy of mentions in main article. Deizio talk 16:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep main article, Delete subarticles, per everyone and their brother. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep main article, Strong delete all minor articles. The main game itself is fairly notable, but the article is in need of major fancruft clean up. The secondary articles are not needed at all, since they have very little to mention, and are covered in the main article. Again, the game itself is notable, having many advertisments strewn throughout many popular websites and a large player base. SnufStyle420 20:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the main article. It is very popular. Delete the subarticles. Unless they can be merged. Wootking Tom 21:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep AdventureQuest, which is clearly famous enough for most purposes. Delete the rest of the here nominated articles, which aren't. AfD isn't cleanup; I agree the main article has problems, but that's not what AfD is for if it otherwise is notable enough. Plus, this is a web-based game rather than an ordinary website; we should also consider WP:SOFTWARE in this case. AQ is Artix Entertainment's most important product, I believe it satisfies that bit. As for other articles, that's just gamecruft - best be merged somewhere if that's really really really useful, which I doubt. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the main article, we can always relocate the other articles onto the main page.

Glenn Browne 11:37, 19 October 2006 (ITC)

• Strong Keep AdventureQuest, speedy delete sub-articles as fancruft. AdventureQuest is definitely notable. Besides an Alexa ranking of 1656, the word "battleon" (a common name for AdventureQuest) has 367 kilogoogles, and the word "adventurequest" has 161 kilogoogles. This game is evidently very popular in Singapore; I frequently see kids play it at Internet cafes. I know the article contains too much fancruft; I'm currently working on re-writing it and replacing fancruft with encyclopediac content. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 16:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain on Adventure Quest, Strong Delete child pages. I loathe this pathetic attempt at a game so I'd better not vote on the main article, but it's nowhere near known enough to earn subpages. Garrett^Talk 23:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep AdventureQuest and purge the spin-off pages as necessary, Derktar 05:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC).
• Keep the main page and Delete the rest for the pretty much the same reasons everyone else is giving. The Kinslayer 09:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I do not understand what the deletion spree is all about. There is not a definable necessity, other than perhaps server space or purposeful omission, to leave information out of the world's largest encyclopedia. There is no need for a society of aristocratic admins to purge articles which they have no interest in, or to which they may see little value but many others do.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.0.29.254 (talk • contribs) .
    • WP:ILIKEIT#It doesn't do any harm, hopefully this answers part of your question. I know it's not policy, but is something that is always worth bearing in mind. The Kinslayer 11:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep AdventureQuest delete the rest. AQ has normally 20k people playing all the time no way this game is NN. Slap a cleanup and sources needed on page and go. Whispering 18:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep the article for people who've never played and have no one to tell them what it's like so that they can see if they like it or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.149.98 (talk • contribs)

• Strong Keep for AdventureQuest for all of the reasons listed above and for the fact that the sheer amount of vandalism this page recieves weekly indicates that it is recieving a large number of hits by the Wikipedia community. Given the fact that this game will feature shortly in an episode of WifeSwap on ABC we can likely expect even more hits in the near future. As for the fancruft. Let it burn. I have already been in the habit of nominating similiar articles for deletion and encouraging their removal. I should however note for honesty's sake that my vote for the game is prejudiced by the fact that I am staff for its community forums. — Falerin^{<talk>,<contrib>} 04:27, 25 October 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.