Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamumu
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. All keep votes are from very new users. CDC (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Hamumu
An internet game website alexa ranked 445,076. It was created almost entirely by one IP and reads like advertising. Especially obvious is that the article incessantly links to the website at every mention of "Hamumu." Delete as advertising and non-notable. --Dmcdevit·t 23:47, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. vanity. Elfguy 23:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. vanity. Marcika 00:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. It didn't originally have constant links to the Hamumu site; read the first few versions. After all, it is a newer article. It was also very recently vandalized. Drgamer 00:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete advertising. JamesBurns 08:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I apologise in advance for the moderately long message, but I really don't understand why this is even up for deletion. I see three reasons stated: advertising, vanity, and "non-notability." Advertising I find listed on the WP:NOT page, and I quote: "Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style." Looking over the article, I can not find anything that is not written in such an unbiased and objective style. I only find the word "fun" occurring in two places, one referring to the "Fun Pack" addon and the other as quoted: "Gamelets are too small to charge for, but still offer up some fun," which does not really break the objective style, and no other "promotional" language is found anywhere. As for the constant linking, that was added in unasked-for by someone other than the original author and has since been removed. On these grounds, I challenge the accusations of advertising. Vanity I find on the Wikipedia:Vanity_page page. I quote from near the beginning: "Usually, vanity authors write about themselves, their significant others, or their school teachers. While an article about a little-known company, say, should not automatically be taken as a vanity page, it is preferable for the initial author not to be an owner or employee of or an investor in the company..." The original author of this article, drgamer (unless I am extremely mistaken) is none of these, and benefits nothing from having this article. The only other place I see where it can even be misconstrued as "vanity" is in the staff section, which I think is, in fact, pertinent. On these grounds, I challenge the accusations of vanity. And finally "non-notability," by which I assume you mean non-importance. Importance is discussed on the Wikipedia:Importance page, and I quote: "An article is important and deserving of inclusion in Wikipedia if any one of the following holds true: 1. there is clear proof that a reasonable number of people (eg. more than 500 people worldwide) are or were concurrently interested in the subject..." There are currently over 500 users signed up at the Hamumu forums. Considering that Mike Hommel makes a living from making his games and hasn't starved yet, I conclude that his business far outstrips a mere 500 customers. Thus I would conclude that this article fulfills Wikipedia's official policy regarding importance. Sorry again for the long post. Frogdude 10:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I'm not the author of the article, but I am the owner of the website. That alone pretty much makes it not vanity! I'm a well-known developer in the indie community, and I see no reason why my company should not be referenced on the Wikipedia as should any others well-known in that large space. My game SPISPOPD has had a Wikipedia page for a long time (note: I also didn't make that page, though I made some edits), and it would make sense to have a page for the developer of it as well, given the linky nature of the wikipedia. I think this is of benefit to people who are using Wikipedia for what it is - an encyclopedia of information. If anyone has a desire to see it sounding less like advertising (it sounds unbiased to me!), they are certainly welcome to make edits. I wouldn't have any problem with chopping the Staff section down - talking about the cats sounds like vanity, but certainly no reason to toss the page. 63.16.208.227 14:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Clean up the spammy parts and then it's as valid as any other article on a business. Geoff Howland 14:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Note: All of the keep voters look like sockpuppets, or at least users who seem to catch on really quickly and make vfd votes as their first edits. Dmcdevit·t 18:40, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- I sincerely hope you are not implying that the fact that it is being supported by people who have little to no other Wikipedia activity yet somehow negates the value of the arguments presented. Especially considering that all the "delete" votes other than the first are single-worded and offer no explanation, whereas all the "keep" so far offer at least something. Frogdude 18:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Let's see the discussion was going fine: delete, delete, delete, keep (by the author, it's customary), delete, and then on the same day, within four hours of each other three keeps from accounts which were just created and then all happen to make their first edits voting on VFD, with remarkably similar arguments. I'll try to assume good faith that you are not all sockpuppets, but remember, "Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their votes may be discounted." I would close the discussion and delete it right now if I wasn't already the nominator. --Dmcdevit·t 19:12, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- I see how that would be suspicious, but I merely ask that the arguments presented not be discarded without being even momentarily considered. I don't see any good argument for deletion, and I see plenty against it. Frogdude 19:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- You don't see a single good argument? Well I haven't seen any good claims to notability. Try to defend the Alexa ranking (445,076), if you can. And see if you can fit it into the guidelines and Wikipedia is not a web guide. --Dmcdevit·t 20:55, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- I apologize, I had never seen the guidelines page before. So that makes one good argument. Although I recommend you look at what Mike Hommel said again, including: "I'm a well-known developer in the indie community, and I see no reason why my company should not be referenced on the Wikipedia as should any others well-known in that large space." Frogdude 22:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure you are Mike Hommel. All four of you, including the creator of the article. Or else how did you happen upon an article about your company here when you appear to be an amateur here in the exact weeklong period that the article is up for deletion. Don't play dumb. Also, where do you get off saying Mike Hommel "makes a living" from this game and "hasn't starved," and that "there are currently over 500 users" if you are not him? How are you in a position to speak intelligently of such things if you are only some dipassionate Wikipedian voting on an article, and not the same person as the rest of the keep voters? And still all of your contributions have been only to this page. How can I conclude otherwise? --Dmcdevit·t 22:56, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- I apologize, I had never seen the guidelines page before. So that makes one good argument. Although I recommend you look at what Mike Hommel said again, including: "I'm a well-known developer in the indie community, and I see no reason why my company should not be referenced on the Wikipedia as should any others well-known in that large space." Frogdude 22:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- You don't see a single good argument? Well I haven't seen any good claims to notability. Try to defend the Alexa ranking (445,076), if you can. And see if you can fit it into the guidelines and Wikipedia is not a web guide. --Dmcdevit·t 20:55, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- I see how that would be suspicious, but I merely ask that the arguments presented not be discarded without being even momentarily considered. I don't see any good argument for deletion, and I see plenty against it. Frogdude 19:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Let's see the discussion was going fine: delete, delete, delete, keep (by the author, it's customary), delete, and then on the same day, within four hours of each other three keeps from accounts which were just created and then all happen to make their first edits voting on VFD, with remarkably similar arguments. I'll try to assume good faith that you are not all sockpuppets, but remember, "Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their votes may be discounted." I would close the discussion and delete it right now if I wasn't already the nominator. --Dmcdevit·t 19:12, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- I sincerely hope you are not implying that the fact that it is being supported by people who have little to no other Wikipedia activity yet somehow negates the value of the arguments presented. Especially considering that all the "delete" votes other than the first are single-worded and offer no explanation, whereas all the "keep" so far offer at least something. Frogdude 18:50, 29 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
