Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honour and Justice Alliance

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. — Feb. 26, '06 [15:16] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

[edit] Honour and Justice Alliance

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

This is non-notable MMORPGcruft. Delete. JDoorjam Talk 02:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

My computer crashed after I put AfD2 up, but before I got to AfD3, and was only reminded of the article this afternoon, hence the delay in posting here. The other posts are from user(s) who saw the listing at the page, rather than at AfD (i.e., the page's author). JDoorjam Talk 20:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion it is notable, it is information on something which is a significant part of game, which a lot of people play. Over 40,000 people play Utopia, and HaJ is relevant to them all. There are about 1000 people for whom HaJ is more directly relevant, as they are (to varying degrees) part of it. I'm sure that to someone that doesn't play the game Utopia, it is irrelevant, but thousands of other articles also seem irrelevant unless you already know something about them.

To be honest, considering the lack of space this page takes up it surprises me that it matters if it stays or not. If it is useful to some people, why not just let it stay?

It has had a blank page for a long time, I just thought I'd provide some further information.

• Comment Actually, I came across this article while patrolling new pages. "Long time"? The page was created less than 24 hours ago.
• Comment The article was not there, but the empty page, together with a link to that page from a disambiguation page, has been there for a long time.

--Kombucha 14:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC) (All contribs are to this article.)

I fear I must disagree with you when you claim it to be a non-notable game. Utopia http://games.swirve.com/utopia is a game of many players that involved intricate details of strategy, communication and diplomacy. Utopia began as a small gathering of 10,000 players in 1998 and has since then been growing. For a full review of Utopia please follow this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia_(online_game) to the game's wikipedia entry.

I must also disagree with your contention that HaJ is a non-notable portion of this game. The Honour and Justice alliance has been around since the seventh age of Utopia, marking it one of the oldest and best known alliances in the gaming world of Utopia. Honour and Justice has hundreds of members with hundreds more passing through her halls each year. HaJ has become an integrated part of the game and is note-worthy for such a venue of information -- wikipedia.

69.161.217.134 16:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC) Arthinius (4 contribs, all to this AfD)

• Comment I never claimed the game was non-notable. However, " "Honour and Justice Alliance" Utopia" gets 7 unique google hits, one of which is -- Haj, a disambiguation page, and one is a mirror of that disambig page.
• Comment The Honour and Justice Alliance is recognized by any player that is familiar with Utopia gameplay. Honour and Justice is the oldest surviving player organization in the game. It has spent many ages contending with other organizations and has dominated many game top charts. The organization is more than noteable within the game for these reasons.
• Merge into the main article if desired, then Delete as non notable gamecruft. -ikkyu2 (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 20:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This kind of nonsense makes Wikipedia look bad. BrianGCrawfordMA 20:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as indiscriminate, incoherent cruft. -- Krash (Talk) 21:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, and I propose the principle that player-created organizations in MMORPGs are inherently non-notable unless something extraordinary makes them notable. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 21:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete gamecruft.--Isotope23 21:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and amen to JdavidB --Ruby 22:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete also per JdavidB Sandstein 12:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

That article is new, but if you search for "HaJ" you will find a disambiguation page, with the option of "Hajj" (a Muslim pilgrimage) or "HaJ" (this alliance.) Following the HaJ link takes you to a blank page.

I understand that to the vast majority of people, this is irrelevant, but there a still a lot that it is relevant to. There are many articles here that contain fairly insignificant information, but it is still vlaid information. Any information and a subject, if correct, is better than a lack of it is it not?

I see why a lot of people may not see a reason why it should be here, but I see no real reason why it shouldn't be here. If someone can explain that (preferably in a non-offensive way) I would appreciate it.

Although a merge would be better in my opinion than an outright deletion, I don't believe it is a good idea. Although HaJ is a part of Utopia, the Utopia article is not really an appropriate place for the information. To use an analogy that would probably make more sense to those that don't play Utopia, it would be similar to having information on Manchester United in an article on football/soccer.

I'm sure that to those that don't play Utopia or a similar game I must seem like a geek with biased views who places too much significance on something which is completely pointless, but I am trying to be as impartial as possible. --Kombucha 15:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The Deletion Policy does not include this kind of article as one that may merit deletion. Of course, the Deletion Policy is not final, but from what I can see, there is no need to delete articles simply because some people don't believe them to be necessary. Correct me if I am wrong and I have missed something.--Kombucha 23:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, Who are you to judge what is worthy and what is not. This is an online encyclopedia, its whole purpose is knowledge. As the two above said, there are over 40,000 people that play utopia. What might not matter to you certinly matters to them. Open your mind for one second. -Fionan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.170.75 (talk • contribs)

(One Wikipedia edit, to this AfD) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDoorjam (talk • contribs) 16:17, 19 February 2006

• Should Have Been Speedied Already Karmafist 23:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Utopia (online game) and let the editors there add an appropriate level of detail on this. Friday (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This really doesn't belong on the Utopia page; even the page's author has said so. JDoorjam Talk 13:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: non-notable gamecruft. Jonathunder 01:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge content with main article, then delete all but a redirect. Not speedyable in my view, though. ++Lar: t/c 01:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This really doesn't belong on the Utopia page; even the page's author has said so. JDoorjam Talk 13:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect/merge per Friday. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 02:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, why do you all post together? Secondly, your posts are worth almost nothing, because you are not backing up your opinions with anything. You continue to say, for example: "non-notable gamecruft" and "Merge content with main article" when I have already given reasons why both are not, in my opinion appropriate. You have said nothing to say why you disagree with these views. --Kombucha 12:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Kombucha, you're probably more likely to annoy people than to get good results by telling everyone their opinions aren't worth much. As the author of the page, and as a new editor who's only edits have been related to this, many people aren't going to weigh your opinions very heavily. This is all about having an appropriate level of detail. If the main game is significant enough to have an article, that's one thing. But many editors feel that we don't need seperate articles on everything IN the game. Why not set up a wiki all about this game, and then you guys can have whatever editorial policies you want? Here, we're trying to be an encyclopedia, and that means we use verifiable information and discuss whatever is most relevant about the topic at hand. Friday (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for responding.

What I said was not that their opinions were worth nothing, but that their posts were worth little. My point was that they were giving no reasons for what they said, or responding to my previous points.

Wikipedia is not all there is in the world. Whether I have made a lot of additions or changes to Wikipedia or not, my opinions can still be just as valid and my points just as correct.

I understand that Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopaedia. But from my point of view, that means containing as much information as possible. Of course, incorrect information is worse than no information, but this information is correct, and relevant to thousands of people. It is by no means the most important article here, not by a long shot, but it may be useful to some people. I see no reason to remove the article, it is doing no harm by being there, as long as it does not contain false information.--Kombucha 21:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

On being asked to close this Afd I'll add my two penn'orth. Somebody asked me to close the AfD on this "this slam-dunk gamecruft article" yesterday. I declined. I said in reply:

• 'I don't like to do article deletion closes. If I encountered this in AfD, I'd probably wonder why such an obvious merge candidate had been nominated for deletion, and why so many people were supporting deletion with no other rationale than that they believed it to be "cruft"'

I hope that whoever does close it will take into consideration all opinions expressed, but will honestly express our dictum: if in doubt, don't delete.

If I encountered this article in cleanup, I'd probably just merge a sentence or two into the article on Utopia (online game) and redirect. That is all that needs to be done here.

Thank you. --Tony Sidaway 01:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I am glad to see that someone in a neutral position is at least disagreeing with the idea of deletion. I would like to point out, again, that a merge would not be a particularly good idea, and would be akin to merging an article on a famous sport team to the article on that sport. Kombucha 01:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

There's one or two key differences: a famous sports team would surely have reputable sources talking about it, and most editors wouldn't find it an inappropriate level of detail to have an entire article about just one team. Friday (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason why what I have written is any less reputable than an article that most people would write on a team. I assure you that what I have written is true. If you would like me to prove this in any way, I will, if it is possible. It is rare for articles to prove what they say; this article does not contain an unusual level of statements that are not backed up.

Edit: How would you (or anyone else) suggest that I improve this article with sources? Due to the nature of the article it is not easy to supply a source for all the statments there, however, I will do what I can. Kombucha (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake, this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Why would it be such a bad idea to edit this article right now to redirect it to Utopia (online game)? In what way would Wikipedia be harmed by my ending this debate by doing that now? As an experiment, I shall try that now and we'll see if Wikipedia is irreparably harmed by this action. --Tony Sidaway 04:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

HaJ is not the same thing as Utopia. It makes no sense to redirect to Utopia. The reason no one has done anything like that so far is because we are still discussing it. Whether Wikipedia is irreparably harmed or not is not the point. Kombucha 08:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a little something to compare.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninjas_in_pajamas same thing, different game. Difference: 5 members compared to hundreds.

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.