Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sokker

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 of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 17:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sokker

  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}}

Delete. An advertisement. Darcyj 12:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

  • D and violates WP:WEB Crzrussian 12:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, advert. PJM 13:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete re-creation of previously speedy-deleted content (no, that's not a speedy for this one). Profoundly non-notable. Just zis Guy you know? 13:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep because for www.hattrick.org there is also an article (Hattrick) - both or nothing!--Tyriats (talk • contribs) 13:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • That is no defence. Compare the two articles and it is clear that Hattrick is notable and has external verifiability. Darcyj 13:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
      • ok, this article should be reworked, it's the first try :o) ... or must in Wiki be all perfect in the first try?--Tyriats 14:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete this isn't Hattrick and a comparison of the two doesn't do much good for the Sokker cause and nor does the current write-up of the article which is not at all wikified. Also I can't verify the forum size as it requires a membership link but the claim of 20,000 users for a web browser game isn't bad. I'd like to see it redrafted to look like a wikipedia article, sourced, and verifiable and then I'd suggest a Keep. MLA 14:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - currently being worked on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.12.170 (talk • contribs) 15:07, March 10, 2006
  • Oh yes, it now says it sets out to be different from other browser games by using Flash. I'm sure Macromedia will be delighted at this new departure in the online games market, I hope you have let them know :-) Just zis Guy you know? 15:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • So, what kind of comment is that? Look at the entry for this game! It looks like someone forgot to be picky about it! It mentions Java Applets, browser names, etc. etc. 194.88.4.146 15:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • There's a section on that page called "Awards"... enough said. --Kinu t/c 23:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. 194.88.4.146 15:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. 213.119.186.97 16:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep why should the article be deleted when Hattrick, Ogame and even minor games like Planetarion, Ninjawars or Cantr II have one? I can't see the point. It just wouldn't be fair. ArnauDuran 08:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
This vote was ArnauDuran's first contribution to Wikipedia. --Craig Stuntz 21:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. 81.107.12.170 Look at the popomundo article, this is far better than that one! 16:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per WP:WEB/vanity. Anonymous visitors are reminded that this is not a vote. — brighterorange (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, ad. --Terence Ong 17:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB and cue the socks. --Kinu t/c 17:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see why this one should be deleted when a lot of these games are represented with similar or worst prepared pages. So I think it should stay. And furthermore, please be kind enough to point out the differences with this accepted page so that the community can learn about the so-obvious to-dos and not-to-dos. Dirty leo 17:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
This vote was Dirty leo's first contribution to Wikipedia. --Craig Stuntz 21:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Well... We should all start from somewhere, right Craig? ;). Dirty leo 23:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely! Being new doesn't mean you can't participate here. Well-reasoned discussion is always welcome. But it's important to understand that this is not a vote and the closing admin is likely to ignore new users who don't say anything other than keep. Note also that Wikipedia has many articles which are arguably non-notable (and probably should be deleted) so if you want to argue for the notability of this article you should argue for the notability of the subject rather than saying that other articles are scarcely any better. --Craig Stuntz 01:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as merely an advertisement.--Ezeu 18:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The article has been since updated a lot since the delete request was made, would appreciate any reconsidered verdicts on what is here so far Mr gibbage 18:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Just before you do any more here or there could I just point out that multiple new users all saying the same thing in the same language and all linking with weblinks instead of wikilinks is begging for a block on all of them for sockpuppetry. You have said your piece, the closing admin will read the comments and weight of evidence, this is not a vote and if anything multiple responses apparently form the same source will result in less weight being given to your opinion, not more. Just zis Guy you know? 19:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Slowmover 19:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no sockpuppetery going on here. The link to this is posted on the sokker website to encourage some of the other users to update, and many of whom have not used wikipedia in the past. Mr gibbage 20:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That type of activity is also outlined at the bottom of WP:SOCK... perhaps that's worth a look. --Kinu t/c 23:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and sockpuppets. :) ---J.Smith 22:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete non notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep why should the article be deleted when Hattrick, Ogame and even minor games like Planetarion, Ninjawars or Cantr II have one? I can't see the point. It just wouldn't be fair. ArnauDuran 17:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, you can't add two keeps from one account. For those not following the history closely, ArnauDuran (talk · contribs) added a keep higher up, then today it (along with my reply noting that the keep was ArnauDuran's first contribution to Wikipedia) was removed by 213.98.129.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), then ArnauDuran added another keep down here, which I have struck as a duplicate. Regarding the substance of your comments, see my reply to Dirty leo. --Craig Stuntz 19:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Nikai 20:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per [[WP:WEB]. If ArnauDuran feels that other pages should be deleted, he can feel free to nominate them. Stifle 00:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm new in the Wikipedia world and don't know all the terms: what means [[WP:WEB], what nom? About sockpuppets I read and I think this concerns only the discussion here - so some of the entries (deletes and keeps) could be deleted. So there is this ad left - I think it means advertisment? For me advertisment has to do something with selling, but sokker is a onlinegame and there are no costs. There are more and more onlinegames and I think it's a good idea to give people some information about these games. For me this information is not advertisment.--Tyriats 13:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
[[WP:WEB] is a typo from someone who intended to write WP:WEB. It contains guidelines for which web sites are and are not "notable" — where notability is the guideline for what should and should not have an article in Wikipedia. --Craig Stuntz 18:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Point 1 of [[WP:WEB] says: 'The content itself has been the subject of non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.' Mr gibbage, who wrote the article, is one of the sokker moderators and players, but not one of the programmers or creators of this site, so I think he is independent of the site itself. And there are other players, who help him and there is a discussion in the sokker forum, but there is no help from any sokker site official.--Tyriats 06:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
No, you misunderstand. The Wikipedia article itself which is up for deletion cannot be considered as a published work establishing notability. That's circular. --Craig Stuntz 13:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Why can't the first line be editted? Doesn't seem to be an edit box for that section Mr gibbage

If you're referring to the article, you can edit the first line by clicking on the "edit this page" link at the top of the page. --Craig Stuntz 18:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
this must be sockpuppetry, isn't it? This is still no vote - it should be a discussion.--Tyriats 06:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Easily verifiable. Let's compare. Your edit count: 5, account created three days ago. Brookie's edit count: 10309, account created over a year ago, and is a SysOp. I wouldn't be the one throwing around accusations of sock puppetry. --Kinu t/c 07:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
is this a discusion or a vote???? Or have SysOps other rights here then normal users and just can vote?--Tyriats 08:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Article has been referenced where I think it is needed, wiki linked at relevant points. Is there anything that stands out now as not being up to the standards of wikipedia? Mr gibbage 09:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

All that's missing is any evidence that it is anything other than "just another game". WP:NOT a directory of online games. Just zis Guy you know? 10:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Mr gibbage, can you please write something about the tactic-editor? I think this is very special to sokker and makes it anything other than "just another game". --Tyriats 10:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, not to feed the socks, but is this true? [1] It says there are 23000 users? Seems like a lot. -- Samir (the scope) 10:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

comment That part has been referenced with the [1] part, where it shows how many users there are. It doesn't count "bots", and the number regularly changes as inactives are booted and new users sign up. 23000 is a relatively small number when you consider how many hattrick has (700k+ IIRC) Mr gibbage 10:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

comment Could someone knowledgable please assess whether the state the article is currently in meets the requirements of wikipedia. Please actually read it and compare it to similar entries rather than just stating delete because everyone else has, and consider the improvements made since the entry was first written. Mr gibbage 18:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The article looks good, but could you give an independent reference that can verify Sokker's notability, i.e. from a notable website or news source? .--Ezeu 20:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep. This appears to be legitimate and reasonably well-known.—This unsigned comment is by Cfortunato (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Rewrite 15 March

I have personally rewritten the article, removing repetition and promotion. Darcyj 22:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Are we supposed to revote now? It still violates WP:WEB, no matter how you rewrite this article. the.crazy.russian vent here 23:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah, well, I have no personal stake in the article, so if it still violates policies then it is doomed. I only rewrote it to conform with WP:NPOV and to de-advertisement the thing, because the people pushing the article were unable or unwilling to do so. Darcyj 23:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, appreciate the rewrite, but I haven't been convinced this is notable by the socks -- Samir (the scope) 03:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I've got to say you've completely ruined a legitimate article. Not impressed. Mr gibbage 13:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Let's give a chance to those 23k people who wants to share their passion with others. --Janpm 14:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This is the first edit from Janpm (talk · contribs)


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.