Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/From The Pavilion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] From The Pavilion

From The Pavilion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Online cricket management game. Questionable notability, likely COI. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I have 2 independant sources for From the pavilion, according to "nawlinwiki", WP:V and WP:RS thats what i need.

http://www.websiteoutlook.com/www.fromthepavilion.org http://www.smgnews.com/index.php/games

Also, there is no conflict of interest as i dont stand to make any money from the site, so im not sure wat the go is there....

Sully89 (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC) — Sully89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Why isnt it notable? WP:V and WP:RS say that 2 third paty sources are adequate. i have those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sully89 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a difference between proving that something exists and showing that it is notable. If you read WP:WEB you will see that it requires the content to have been the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works". nancy (talk) 17:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
http://www.websiteoutlook.com/www.fromthepavilion.org shows why it is notable. Thats an independant third party website which values the dollar value and analyses the trffic of a website. also www.smgnews.com is a website dedicated to sport management games and mentions FTP several times, like this interview with the creator, http://www.smgnews.com/index.php/component/content/article/41-Top_Stories/7-FTP_Beta. If other cricket games like "Battrick" have a their own page, wat else do you need to establish that this is a notable website? Sully89 (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Sully89. Whilst I admire your passion on this topic, none of your arguments (so far) have basis in policy or Wikipedia guidelines. If you have not already I would urge you to read the notability requirements for web content and also the essay Other stuff exists. nancy (talk) 06:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - the sources presented are not notable in their own right (and the one about the web traffic is underwhelming, to say the least). A search indicates that no solid reliable sources have reported on the game. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


Well then can you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battrick and tell me why the referance there are different from the ones on FTP. FTP has a traffic analysis and 2 articles from www.smgews.com, Battrick has 2 articles from www.smgnews.com and an article on sport management games in general, i cant see a difference from article to article in notability

58.108.107.156 (talk) 02:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC) — 58.108.107.156 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

While this is a case of other things exist, I'll note thatBattrick looks like it should be gone to me, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battrick closed as no consensus. It's also part of Hattrick, and there seems to be support for its existence, along with some small coverage of it. I personally think it's not notable, but consensus states Tony Fox (arf!) 04:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

So if Battrick gets its own indiviual article with the same degree of notability and nearly identical website referances, why cant FTP? Also, if you note the second to final point on the Battrick deletion discussion, "Keep, it seems to meet similar criteria as another game Hattrick which was voted to be kept here albeit this has a smaller userbase"

58.108.107.156 (talk) 07:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you miss the bit where I said I think the other one's not notable either? Battrick is an offshoot of Hattrick, which gives it a bit of hang-on notability despite the links. Honestly, I think the lot should be dropped as non-notable, but I'm one opinion of many. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
And we'll see what the opinion is on Battrick: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battrick (2nd nomination). Tony Fox (arf!) 16:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Only thing is, its a different issue since Battrick dont have any acceptable referances and FTP does.

58.108.107.156 (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

um... it does? The sources here are all non-notable, and are quite similar to those available for Battrick. Anyhow, last comment from me; I suggest finding good reliable sources quickly. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
In what is this article not notable? Given thats a relatively new online you are unlikely to find many sources. It is notable based on that fact it is competitor to Battrick and other online sport games such as Hattrick, Footstar, Sokker etc - of which all have articles in wikipedia. Also it is notable based on the fact that it is unique compared to other online games, in terms of the gameplay itself. It is also notable based on the fact that more than 1000 users play the game now. You are basically claiming that Battrick isnt notable..but somehow it is because its linked with Hattrick..in what way is Hattrick notable? - In that same way FTP is also notable. Anyhow - if you can tell us in what way it is not notable..maybe we can then understand the argument that you present. Currently your reasoning does not make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamescoopercronk (talk • contribs) 08:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC) — Jamescoopercronk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete - this one actually has validity, but past that, there's no non-trivial reception or coverage that would demonstrate notability to satisfy WP:WEB. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)