Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mario Fan Games Galaxy
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 was DELETE. JIP | Talk 16:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mario Fan Games Galaxy
I had tagged this with a notability tag and was waiting to see what happened. Another user prod'ed it with this reason: "Website with no assertion of notability. See talk page for more details." The prod was removed by the page's author, and an explanation is given on the talk page. I'm taking this here for community consensus, but currently abstain. GassyGuy 03:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
-Funny. Because the reason it is notable is referenced directly on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.145.169 (talk • contribs)
-
- In all fairness, it's debatable whether a passing mention on a TV show qualifies it per WP:WEB, but again, I currently have no opinion and am doing this for procedural reasons. Please see WP:PROD. GassyGuy 04:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Technically, Attack of the show qualifies as a journalistic medium and not just a TV show. It is a technology news show and is presented as such. --DimensionWarped 05:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Regardless of what medium it is, the coverage is supposed to be non-trivial and there are supposed to be multiple sources. If those sources are added to the article, I'm sure the consensus will be to keep. GassyGuy 06:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Triviality is in the eye of the beholder... but since I don't really know MFGG that well, I wouldn't really know if there are other sources. --DimensionWarped 07:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Regardless of what medium it is, the coverage is supposed to be non-trivial and there are supposed to be multiple sources. If those sources are added to the article, I'm sure the consensus will be to keep. GassyGuy 06:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Technically, Attack of the show qualifies as a journalistic medium and not just a TV show. It is a technology news show and is presented as such. --DimensionWarped 05:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Honestly I don't get what you people are trying to accomplish. The media reference was listed and you still aren't satisfied. Whatever happened to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 70.130.145.169 05:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- In all fairness, it's debatable whether a passing mention on a TV show qualifies it per WP:WEB, but again, I currently have no opinion and am doing this for procedural reasons. Please see WP:PROD. GassyGuy 04:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Obviously, as I originally proposed deletion, I think this article should be deleted, based on the fact the article was created in violation of WP:POINT, as it was created as an example to attempt to justify the existance of Sonic Fangames HQ, an article deleted in AfD. External forum topic here with post from author [[1]]. Also, I really don't see how a passing, mispronounced reference on a television show automatically qualifies it as notable. Super Mario: Blue Twilight DX is certainly notable; however, MFGG is simply a website that Blaze posted it at. If being on television is of itself proof of notability, then every person ever on a game show or making funny faces at the local news TV camera behind the news anchor is notable, and that's simply not the case. Now, if the author can show us a multitude of shows referencing the website, or a ton of press coverage, instead of one single instance, that would be a different matter and I'd gladly consider changing my opinion. -MysticEsper 07:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Whomever you are, linking to other forums to start trouble all because you don't think this article is necessary is stupid. I suggest you remove the link. I feel that refusing to do so would also fall under WP:POINT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.145.169 (talk • contribs)
- Comment That link seems quite relevant to our discussion, and it hardly falls under WP:POINT. syphonbyte (t|c) 18:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment 70.130.145.169, I am trying to accomplish something very simple: stating my point. In order to make a claim, I must back up my opinion with facts. Simply saying "This is a violation of WP:POINT because I said so" isn't going to explain anything, and simply make me look like an idiot. By posting material to justify my claims, I both add information to the discussion and state my point clearly. -MysticEsper 23:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per MysticEsper, according to those forum posts, this article falls under WP:POINT, and at any rate a passing, mispronounced mention on TV does not qualify it for an article. syphonbyte (t|c) 18:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Both this site and SFGHQ have been around for a very long time and without them, I don't think Mario fangaming or Sonic fangaming would have ever done near as well. There's a whole section for fanmade games and remakes and I think two of some of the biggest fangame sites earn it's spot. -W.A.C. (7/26/06)
- Delete, fails WP:WEB; a single passing reference does not give notability, and the article's claims of incredible traffic are hardly supported by the (admittedly flawed) tools we have available to assess that: for example, the site's Alexa ranking is just 348,298, while Google returns fewer than 250 results when you search for the site's name. For a wholly internet-based entity, this is not impressive. My personal homepage does better on the Google test... — Haeleth Talk 20:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure how significant this is, but in the 4 days since you made that post, the Alexa ranking went up by 25,058. 04:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per MysticEsper. Violation of WP:POINT. -Royalguard11Talk 00:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Although I'm probably biased since I'm the administrator, Keep, but clean up clean up clean up. The site has about 3000 members on it and consumes somewhere in the range of 200 GB of bandwidth a month, which is a ton. The reason searching for the actual site name doesn't bring up that many results is that it's almost always referred to by its abbreviation: MFGG. I think the site is significant enough. If things like this can go completely unchecked, I see no reason why a website like this can't be included. As for the G4 mention, when the same story was reposted on the Attack of the Show website, it primarily mentioned the MFGG website instead of the Blue Twlight Game. A lot of this article needs to be improved though. Right now, the article only makes sense to those who are really involved in the website, especially with the terminology. The site is definitely signifcant enough to warrant its own article, but I would suggest a complete re-write. ShadowMan1od 00:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per ShadowMan1od. Notable website, GHit for "MFGG" gets 19,200 hits. Needs {{cleanup}} not {{afd}}. Note that notability (WP:N) is an essay and not a guideline. Per the offical policy (WP:WIN), the article "should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, [etc.]" It is doing this, (or could,) but needs a lot of cleanup. See also: m:Wiki is not paper and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. --DavidHOzAu 06:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Only about 10 (at the most) of the results on the first 3 pages are related to this site. The rest of the pages have results with even fewer references to the site, so the actual hit count is not really an accurate count at all, as with nearly all Google searches. syphonbyte (t|c) 06:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment doesn't matter Because notability is in the eye of the beholder, WP:N is an essay, it isn't even a guideline. (Essays are the furthest that articles in the Wikipedia namespace can get from policy.) Besides, GHits can only be used to rule in, not to rule out. (I'm sure there's a logical fallacy about that, but this nomination is too close to ending for me to find it.) I suggest the article be considered on its technical potential for an encylopedic article, which is why I'm firm in the belief that {{cleanup}} was needed instead of {{afd}}. --DavidHOzAu 02:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment (found it) Despite the somewhat questionable grounds of WP:WEB, deleting on notabilty alone is clearly argumentum ad google (argumentum ad populum and appeal to authority in one), with the intent to generate an argument for deletion based on ad hominem grounds. (This is why I am forced to question all WP:WEBs where I notice that the rationale is based on fallacious arguments.) Also, saying "there's no search hits therefore it isn't notable" is like saying "Black holes don't exist because I can't see them." IMHO, AfD could function a lot better if were based on the technical content of the article (words, structure, style, etc.) instead of what is being talked about, which as I mentioned is the offical policy. --DavidHOzAu 02:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment doesn't matter Because notability is in the eye of the beholder, WP:N is an essay, it isn't even a guideline. (Essays are the furthest that articles in the Wikipedia namespace can get from policy.) Besides, GHits can only be used to rule in, not to rule out. (I'm sure there's a logical fallacy about that, but this nomination is too close to ending for me to find it.) I suggest the article be considered on its technical potential for an encylopedic article, which is why I'm firm in the belief that {{cleanup}} was needed instead of {{afd}}. --DavidHOzAu 02:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Only about 10 (at the most) of the results on the first 3 pages are related to this site. The rest of the pages have results with even fewer references to the site, so the actual hit count is not really an accurate count at all, as with nearly all Google searches. syphonbyte (t|c) 06:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Mention on a single TV show does not meet WP:WEB. Poor Alexa/Google showing doesn't help either. Wickethewok 13:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep But Rewrite - Fangaming is a very notable phenomenon (and even has its own article). Mario fangaming is particularly prevelent, and as the most undeniably comprehensive source of Mario fangames and fangaming resources, MFGG is certainly notable. In fact, MFGG is notable for historic reasons; namely, it was one of the first fangaming sites to survive for several years. That said, this article should be heavily rewritten to focus more on how significant MFGG is to the fangaming community, which I am willing to do. Also, as noted by DavidHOzAu, WP:N is not official policy. While WP:WEB is an official guideline, WP:PAG states that Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Therefore, it is entirely possible (and, given the importance of MFGG to the fangaming community, probable) that MFGG may be exempt from WP:WEB. Jeff Silvers 03:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The fact that the site focuses on a notable subject and has been around for a long time does not make it notable, though. syphonbyte (t|c) 23:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment True, but the fact that it is undeniably the most prominent resource for said notable subject does. Jeff Silvers 02:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Not neccessarily, though. I can prove this by counterexample: the most prominent site for information on the TOC2 protocol was originally a (relatively) obscure html file on an utterly non-notable site. The TOC2 protocol itself is notable, but the site that was the leading authority on it was not. syphonbyte (t|c) 03:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I think the difference would be that while the site would be the leading authority on TOC2, TOC2 is essentially just a system. This is a community instead of just a function that you can document. Mario fangaming is fairly widespread, and MFGG is essentially the hub for all of it (especially for fangaming in general too). ShadowMan1od 04:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment TOC2 is (along with OSCAR) the primary protocol for AOL Instant Messenger, so it's actually more widespread than Mario fangaming. Getting back to the main point, there is no notability by proxy. syphonbyte (t|c) 05:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment again I didn't mean it as in "MARIO FANGAMING IS REALLY IMPORTANT GUYS", its just the "main site" aspect. While that site wasn't notable, it was more of something that you could make write-ups and documents on rather than being a growing community that requires a main hub. ShadowMan1od 22:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment TOC2 is (along with OSCAR) the primary protocol for AOL Instant Messenger, so it's actually more widespread than Mario fangaming. Getting back to the main point, there is no notability by proxy. syphonbyte (t|c) 05:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I think the difference would be that while the site would be the leading authority on TOC2, TOC2 is essentially just a system. This is a community instead of just a function that you can document. Mario fangaming is fairly widespread, and MFGG is essentially the hub for all of it (especially for fangaming in general too). ShadowMan1od 04:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Not neccessarily, though. I can prove this by counterexample: the most prominent site for information on the TOC2 protocol was originally a (relatively) obscure html file on an utterly non-notable site. The TOC2 protocol itself is notable, but the site that was the leading authority on it was not. syphonbyte (t|c) 03:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment True, but the fact that it is undeniably the most prominent resource for said notable subject does. Jeff Silvers 02:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I simply don't see how this is related, though. Fangaming is a notable subject, no question, and many Mario fangames themselves are notable, such as Blaze's Super Mario: Blue Twilight DX. However, a website that hosts or talks about a notable subject isn't notable on those grounds. Where is the news coverage talking about the site itself? -MysticEsper 23:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The fact that the site focuses on a notable subject and has been around for a long time does not make it notable, though. syphonbyte (t|c) 23:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 20:41, 2 August 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.
