Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simtropolis (2nd nomination)
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 Keep. Nishkid64 19:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Simtropolis
This article was nominated for deletion in July 2006 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simtropolis). The verdict was no consensus, despite all bar 2 of the keeps being from first time visitors to Wikipedia. I believe that nowadays we actually do require an article to assert why it is notable (this does not), to contain multiple independant reliable sources to back that up (this does not). The article also fails our guideline to notability for websites, which can be found here. Fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOT = Delete. Proto::► 23:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- I can understand a need to improve this article, possibly adjusting the format and style to better conform to Wiki guidelines (the addition of citations is very much desired). Deletion, however, would be an extreme and unnecessary action. The content seems quite valid. That being said, I believe this article would be much more practical if put into context. Simply merge it with SimCity4. Kugelmass 23:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I did not realize that a merge was previously discussed. As someone who has never played SimCity 4, I found the Simtropolis content very supportive and pertinent to the subject. Where can I find an archived discussion page? Among other things, I am very curious as to why it was not deleted during the previous nomination. Kugelmass 01:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Keep. This has information about a site that I'd rather find here then digging through a website. Why are we so into deleting articles like this? --69.242.227.133 22:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Woops. Wasn't logged in. --Strawberry Island 22:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree with Strawberry. Kugelmass 23:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The website notability guidelines are still in flux. The subject—and the article—has warranted enough attention that it's, if nothing else, implicitly notable. Does it need cleanup? Probably. That's no reason to throw it out, though. —C.Fred (talk) 06:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. per C.Fred. Mathmo Talk 17:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral. A merge is clearly not appropriate, and the site is potentially notable (large userbase, largest SimCity 4 fansite), but I'm not seeing the multiple, independent, reliable sources here. Chris cheese whine 19:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I for one didn't know it exisited, but now I do. Good thing it was on wikipedia, isn't it?--Labine50 04:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Although it may "merely" be a fansite, I believe we should keep this article. Yes, the site is virtually unknown outside the SimCity fan base to casual observers. But the site seems to enjoy a unique position, being mentioned in the game's official website a number of times.[1] And hey, even Apple links to it.[2] Moreover, doesn't being featured on an article on a website run by The NY Times, albeit short, show its notability to some extent?[3] Finally, the site appears in at least one academic journal. (Haynes, Cynthia (January 2006). "Armageddon Army: Playing God, God Mode Mods, and the Rhetorical Task of Ludology". Games and Culture: A Journal of Interactive Media 1 (1): 89–96. doi:10.1177/1555412005281909. ) All of this considered, I believe the subject article would satisfy the criteria if more references are introduced into the article itself, which is not a hard task. --朝彦 (Asahiko) 19:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- As far as I am aware, the sub-sub-sub-sites of About.com are something akin to people's homepages. They are by no means on a par with the Times itself. If sourcing is "not a hard task", why has it not been accomplished in the over a year that this article has been around? Chris cheese whine 00:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- No, I'd never think that About.com would be something on par to the NYT either. The writers on that site ("Guides", they call them) have their work checked and evaluated by the editors, and are receiving compensation depending on the quality of their work.[4] That makes the independent secondary source reliable enough, doesn't it? Calling it akin to personal webpages is misleading. --朝彦 (Asahiko) 01:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I checked out the article. It's a name-check. In fact, it's less than a name-check. It's a name-check for a mod which happens to be available on the site. The entirety of the one line in the journal which mentions it: "* god landscape—Simtropolis mod that converts god trees to pine trees and mass plop them all over your map;". Chris cheese whine 01:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- As far as I am aware, the sub-sub-sub-sites of About.com are something akin to people's homepages. They are by no means on a par with the Times itself. If sourcing is "not a hard task", why has it not been accomplished in the over a year that this article has been around? Chris cheese whine 00:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I grew up on SimCity, and this is a pretty solid fansite, but...it's a fansite. Paul 21:26, 12 February 2007 (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.
