Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elite Roleplaying

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 DELETE. Mo0[talk] 22:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I reached this decision by noting that all of the KEEP votes, with the exception of the first, were made by users with accounts that were either less than 2 weeks old or appear to have only been used recently in edits related to this discussion. Anybody that's a member of a group would logically try to prevent this article from being deleted, but after looking through the article myself, while it's a VERY well-written article that you should all be proud of (it's better than 99% of the schlock that gets fed through AFD), it's unfortunately not notable enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Mo0[talk] 22:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elite_Roleplaying

non-notable gaming community TheOneCalledA1

  • Delete per nomination. Frühstücksdienst 03:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. Bobby1011 03:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I'd hate to delete a page that looks like it took such effort, but wikipedia is not a personal web space for individuals or groups. --Cymsdale 10:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Abstain I'm removing my delete recommendation; I'm on the fence on this one. --Cymsdale 21:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 12:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ick next we will get Star Trek clans..... Williamb 12:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Percy Snoodle 14:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, but offer them a userfy. Someone spent alot of time on that.--Isotope23 15:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Understandable arguments, but being one of the main people who created this, I have to agree to keep it, no offense intended. Elite Roleplaying itself is a large RPG group with 3 divisions and a defined governmental system. It may seem minor, but it has been involved in the Star Trek Voyager Elite Force community (and the Star Wars Jedi Knight Jedi Academy community, but not for so long) and has gained quite a history with a great amount of members (probably around 200+). Now, look at an article like Bravo Fleet. Bravo Fleet is a Star Trek SIM group, just as ERP is except with the inclusion of in-game RPG and a Star Wars division. We have and have had a large member database just as Bravo Fleet, and there is even more valid information that can be included in the ERP article than the Bravo Fleet article. The Elite Roleplaying article isn't small but very detailed with some very interesting information on a group that has been active for about 5 years. While creating this article, I also avoided the use of personal POV, I respect neutrality in articles. I also greatly contemplated whether this article would be nominated for deletion, as it is being done right now. I made this in a way to avoid being an advertisement, but to be informative and interesting, I even had assistance by a great number of people in retrieving proper information to make sure all was complete. If Bravo Fleet can be kept, I think Elite Roleplaying should be kept. If this article is deleted, then the Bravo Fleet article should be discussed as well. Thank you for your time. - Enzo Aquarius 21:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, sounds like a good argument to start an AfD of Bravo Fleet...--Isotope23 01:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - A poll was already done for the deletion of the Bravo Fleet article, a non-consensus was declared. Many of the arguments that contributed to it are most likely what is involved in the decisions for the deletion of this article. As another note of 'interest' per se, this article was not meant for advertisement. We (the group) felt that we had an adequete amount of valid information that could be added to Wikipedia. Elite Roleplaying isn't just 'another Star Trek clan', we distinguished ourselves in our communitys (we aren't even a clan actually) and were able to grow due to a successful and dedicated memberbase. Even as we speak, further expansion plans are being created. Elite Roleplaying isn't just a 'Star Trek clan'. - Enzo Aquarius 13:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - It seems fairly obvious that this organisation is large enough and with a rich history in the development of roleplaying (especially given links with Destiny's Wind "ERP's Sister Star Trek Project.")to dispute the initial reason given for deletion. A non-notable gaming community? The sister project of Destiny's Wind? I'm afraid that the initial reason given is in no way justified. There is nothing to support such an arguement. - Helios 18:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Please assume good faith (WP:FAITH) and refrain from making unsupported accusations about people's identity or intent.--Isotope23 20:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Apologies, no offense was intended. Just felt that the article had more dubious reasons behind it's call for deletion. Again, my aplogies..--Helios 20:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Oh god, dont get the entire wikipedia community on an problem that is nobodys buisness. I am TheOneCalledA1. I am not "Digi". Please dont bring this argument here too. On the next note, so, does this mean that an article on the longest lasting Star Trek Community/Clan deserve an article too? It would have just as much right to as Elite Roleplaying does.TheOneCalledA1 19:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see why it should be deleted? The article refrains from PoV's, it adheres to a strict non-advertising and purely informative stance. It is in no way being used as a 'personal webspace'. Elite Roleplaying is an organisation that has been around a long time and has a large and rich history with regards to Elite Force Roleplaying and the sister project of Destiny's Wind. Why should it be deleted? All you have done is compared it to a fairly irrelevant example. Please can you give something more direct? Does it break any particular rule? Does it act in a manner that it deserved to be deleted? The non-notable tag really can't be justified in this particular situation. Elite Roleplaying is not a 'Star Trek clan'.-Helios 20:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep- Can't justify reason for deletion The group has too much of a history in EF RPing, it's links with Destiny's Wind and that it's a well known group with a large member base in the EF RPing community. I see no reason why this article should be deleted. Achives nothing through it's deletion.--Helios 12:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep ERP Was the forerunner to a very popular trend of gaming within the Elite Force community, and many of its ideals and practices have spread to others, ERP Is not using wikipedia to advertise itself, The article is a very well drawn up and informative peice of information concerning a large part of the history within the elite force community. ERP is not a clan, it is a group of people who started out with one goal, and acheived it. The wiki article is not an advert, and is not harmful In any way that I can understand. What saddens me most is I beleive the issue was drawn to your attention by someone who is not concerned for the integrity of wikipedia, but by someone who outlawed themself from the ERP community by causing major disruptions, and I personally beleive that this is more of an act of revenge than concern for the misuse of wikipedia webspace. The article is Completely factual, and very well constructed, There are many outside of the ERP community who could speak for its integrity, and recognise what it has acheived over the years. --Merrick
Comment - We strive to have an enjoyable experience with our peers and colleagues in a roleplaying environment, it's not about greatness but about working with great people. We work together well in our community, and this article also reflects that, we got together to make an article on a topic we felt was valid for Wikipedia, we did not use personal bias, we did not make an advertisement article and we made it very informative. There are also a number of edits by those that aren't even Elite Roleplaying with no complaints from them. Thank you for your time. - Enzo Aquarius 02:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep-I withdraw my last comment. The ERP people have put a lot of time into this page, and it's a shame to squander that.

--Cronin

  • Keep - Ok, I'll list and rebut the sections I believe it is felt that the article fails on. Self-promotion. The arbitration committee ruled on February 17, 2006 that: "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so." I don't believe this is breached, as the article maintains NPOV throughout. Advertising. Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable. Again, as far as I can see, the article is indeed written in the aforementioned objective, unbiased style, and therefore does not breach this, either. ERP is also verifiable by most of the RPG community of Elite Force and Jedi Academy. As such, I believe it should be kept. -- Berle
  • Keep This doesn't violate any rules, and was formatted neutrally... No need for deletion Legovan (Millen)
  • Keep I agree, I haven't seen any rules that this article violates. -- GMoney 19:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Please take note, that several of the people who voted are actualy Elie Roleplaying members. TheOneCalledA1 02:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Further Comment - A good number of these people helped me make the article or contribute too, as I said, it was a community effort and is thus the works of many. - Enzo Aquarius 02:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Further Comment - I'm not a member. - Cronin
  • Further Comment I didnt say that all are. I said several. Theres atleast two ERP members who voted to keep, who havent made any other edits except their userpages and this.

TheOneCalledA1 21:03, 27 February 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.