Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonic Fangames HQ

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sonic Fangames HQ

Non-notable site about fan-made games for Sonic the Hedgehog. I prod'ded this but it was removed. Danny Lilithborne 00:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I would hardly call it "Non-notable". It's been around since the late 90s, is linked in several articles related to the subject matter ([Example 1], [Example 2]), and is rather large. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.211.42.146 (talk • contribs)
  • delete gamecruft. Artw 01:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I see no evidence that this meets WP:WEB, and is also gamecruft. --Kinu t/c 02:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Non-notable Gamecruft. Crabapplecove 02:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd like to encourage editors to avoid using pejoratives like "whatevercruft." For one thing, it's terribly vauge what exactly is "cruft" and for another it's slightly incivil. - brenneman {L} 03:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN JianLi 03:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete gamecruft. Take it to a game wiki. -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • While the site itself is not the subject of much discussion in magazines, some of the various artists who associate themselves with the site have had their works featured in Japanese and Australian magazines including the creators of Marioween/Blue Twilight and Halo Zero, both of which were either displayed in magazines or on gamespot. Also, the article promises to feature a history of the community concerned with the site, so clearly the purpose of the article is NOT advertising. Both of the titles I was discussing earlier are distributed through channels that aren't directly associated with the site and both titles offer reference to the site in question... which makes it qualifiable under part III of the notability for webcontent. --DimensionWarped 04:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • User has 11 edits - all to this page. ViridaeTalk 13:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • To those who are simply saying "delete," state your arguments as to why, in particular, where it fails the Wikipedia standards test. In other words, substantiate your claims. Otherwise, you have no argument.

--Ssbfalcon 04:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    • DimensionWarped admits that this site is not discussed, just people that happen to be associated with the site. You're supposed to be the ones arguing why the article should be kept. Danny Lilithborne 05:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Regardless to whether the site is discussed at length or not, content created with relation to the site is distributed by largely recongnized media sources. That fits the rule. If you question that reasoning against deletion, then I'll have to question your reasoning for insistance that this isn't a notable site.--DimensionWarped 05:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Glaber here, this article is still under construction and the history bit is not ready yet. So the article should stay other wise nothing. (the only thing I could do is reupload)
  • To those who are simply saying "delete," state your arguments as to why, in particular, where it fails the Wikipedia standards test. In other words, substantiate your claims. Otherwise, you have no argument. My Arguments for non deletion: As mentioned, this site has been the launchpad for various notable projects as mentioned and is one of the most active fangame communities still around, and it has gone through quite a bit. Many other communities have come and gone, such as Zelda Fangames HQ and Megaman Fangames HQ, but despite the attacks on the site and its community which even took it down from the internet for a while, and demonstrates a fangame community which thrives on just that. Again, many have tried, but they have failed many times. SFGHQ again has a decent amount of success stories, such as the above mentioned games, compared to the other fan game communities, including the much larger Mario Fangame Galaxy.

--Ssbfalcon 05:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    • User has 13 edits. Either to the page nominated for deletion or to this page. ViridaeTalk 13:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Shadix here, it would be nice if you guys would at least give us a chance to put our article together some. SFGHQ is rich in history and remains one of the larger franchise Fangaming sites out there. There is also quite a bit of useful information that can still be put on it. -Shadixep 05:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I wholly support the non-deletion of this article. As previously stated, the article is a work-in-progress and just because you, as a non-Sonic fangamer think the site is non-notable doesn't mean it actually isn't. It's THE most active Sonic fangaming site to date, the longest-running and is associated with the Mario Fangames Galaxy as well as the Sonic Stuff Research Group (when it was on Emulationzone.org) and also is rich in history. As far as non-notable goes, I think you haven't had a toe in the ocean that is fangaming and really either didn't research it at all or only had a little look at it. --Suspchaos 06:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment It goes without saying that people involved with the site would believe that the site is rich in history. That doesn't make it notable in a general-interest sense. Claiming that those in favor of deletion "have no argument" doesn't help your case at all. Danny Lilithborne 06:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Though not mentioning your case at all and just saying the site is "non-notable" doesn't give you a case to argue either. We have mentioned few of SFGHQ's history which you have obviously overlooked in your quest to see this page removed. I must also mention, according to the WP:WEB that Kinu linked to. Our content has received awards from publications including Gamespot (it's on Gamespot which is a notable achievement in itself since very few fangames developed make it onto sites such as Gamespot or 1up. --Suspchaos 06:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I've already presented a counterpoint which nullifies your argument for the deletion of the article Lilithborne. --DimensionWarped 08:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Longhair 06:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't worry about it anymore. We're not going to fight a battle that we probably won't win. Just delete it. Enjoy your minor victory, Wikipedianals. --Suspchaos 06:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • All that really matters is that it meets the criteria for notability. And it meets that criteria, so I really don't see how there can be any further argument on it. Atlus meets the criteria for notability simply for articles on games they produced. The magnitude-ignoring assumption there is that if a product of notability is affiliated with a group, then that group is in itself notable. And people, this isn't a bloody vote. It's a debate on notability. Either state legitimate reasons or don't state anything at all.--DimensionWarped 08:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't delete it. Everybody has their own opinions as to what and what isn't notable. And just because a few people (who interpret the rules incorrectly and to their advantage) find it useless doesn't mean it is. Perhaps you should just ignore it if it is so useless to you. It obviously isn't useless to others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.145.169 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Not notable gamecruft. ViridaeTalk 13:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB and WP:NOT. To 70.130.145.169 and DimensionWarped: there are guidelines on what can and cannot be included on Wikipedia, and we are following them to the letter. See WP:NOT and WP:WEB. Srose (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Pure gamecruft, and NN --Bschott 14:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Guys, please take a look at this essay: WP:FAN. If you really think that an article can be written on your forum that doesn't fall into fancruft as defined there, please write it and stick it up. At present, the article is little more than unencyclopedic gibberish. Vizjim 14:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Whether or not the article meets WP:WEB (i.e. whether or not the required notability exists out there in the real world), the notability is not currently documented in the article. If the documentation exists and can be added to the article, we can revisit. Demonstrating notability is up to the article authors, who should put necessary docs into the article itself. Other editors are not expected to go search for it. Phr (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I support not deleting this article. Like many have said the article is under construction and the site is rich in history. -W.A.C. (7/24/06)
  • Keep. It's oviously notable. Just search for it on Google! --Mark the Echidna 14:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd like to note that the article as of 10:11, 24 July 2006 is drastically different from the original article. If some of you are basing your arguments on the content of the current entry (which is about as unencyclopedic as I could ever imagine), consider just whether the topic alone merits an entry - regardless of whether or not its current incarnation is, as you say, fancruft. Workaphobia 15:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • User has 2 edits. ViridaeTalk 02:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete gamecruft Computerjoe's talk 16:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, definitely. However I would like to remind everyone here that "Gamecruft" or "Fancruft" is not a Wikipedia guideline, and is thus never grounds for deletion. The causes for deletion are WP:NOT and WP:WEB, not "gamecruft." Dark Shikari 17:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Leave it be. Don't you guys have other things to worry about? It's a fansite. Not a cult of any kind. What damage is this going to do Wiki? None! By the way, get yourselves educated. Furthermore, what is gamecruft? You guys never explained what the hell it is? SFGHQ is much bigger than you "deleters" think. Just do a google search. Sonic Stadium is a another big fansite. If you wish too, go to Moogle Cavern wish could be said to be the "sister" site of SFGHQ. Most, if not all the olde members of SFGHQ post there quite often.
    • "Cruft" is an old programmer/hacker term for something that is only important to a select group of people (well, actually it refers to old junk code in a program, but that's another story). So, "Gamecruft" means only gamers would be interested in this article.
      • SFGHQ isn't a cruft in the least. What part of thew word SONIC FAN don't you guys understand? SFGHQ is merely a fansite.
  • Delete Fails WP:WEB. GassyGuy 19:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:WEB. -- Whpq 19:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe you all should actually read WP:WEB and pay particular attention to section 3. I already stated that the questioned webcontent meets section 3 which means it complies with WP:WEB.
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 21:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Most notable site for creating Sonic fan games and a rapidly growing community. The article will only have to be remade later when the site become even more popular.--Eraysor 21:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm torn on this one. This site has been around for an eternity and has been very influential in the creation of many notable fangames, but as a website I don't believe it's notable. Only 4,690 results from Google on "SFGHQ", the common abbreviation. Even less for the full name of the website in quotations. The fact that the article itself is a stub, and a rather bad stub at that, doesn't help. Also, note that you're going to get meatpuppets lured in from this forum topic here: http://sfghqmb.com/showthread.php?t=495 -MysticEsper 22:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Would that link warrant putting up {{afdsock}} on this AfD? --NeoChaosX 02:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Funny. I don't see a single person who is for this article staying that has been as weak in explaining their stance as the majority of the opposition.--DimensionWarped 06:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment See also WP:CVG#Scope_of_information for additional guidelines on how to write an article for inclusion in an encyclopedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by MrDolomite (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, per WP:WEB. --NeoChaosX 02:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Meatpuppets? You know there are actual people behind this. God you guys are about as elitist as it gets. Call off the debate, just let the bums delete it.
    • Comment I'm not trying to ruin anyone's parade, but policy is policy. Meatpuppets are highly discouraged, especially in cases of AfD discussions. I merely linked the relevant topic so it would be understood that there would be a lot of meatpuppets and why. If you'd like to consider that elitist, you may go ahead. -MysticEsper 00:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Policy dictates that the use of such a word is ill advised. If you want to talk about what is highly discouraged, maybe you shouldn't be partaking of the discouraged yourself. I'll assure you that no one from that topic is getting involved here unless they would do so upon their own personal discretion. It isn't some board full of nothing but pitiful flunkies.--DimensionWarped 06:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment DimensionWarped, I have in the past been a SFGHQ member, and no offense to you or anyone else, but all forums, no matter the notability, have their fair share of "me too" bandwagon hoppers. Simply being linked from a current forum topic is going to lead to people seeing the AfD and clicking on it. I prefer all information to be put forth out in the open, so I linked the forum topic and explained the situation so everyone knows as many facts as there are to know. After all, if the site truly is notable, linking a forum topic and saying a few meatpuppets are posting won't make any difference on the consensus. I will note that I'm perfectly happy to change my vote if I see evidence to the contrary, but currently all I see is "A bunch of popular fangames got their start here", which I don't see as notable in of itself. -MysticEsper 08:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The next person to say delete per WP:WEB had better say exactly what the hell makes it not meet the 3rd potential qualification on WEB.--DimensionWarped 12:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Which of these: online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. is it distributed by? ViridaeTalk 14:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I guess gamespot fits into the category of online magazine, though I'm not certain exactly. They do broadcast, but it would be hard to give them a specific label. There are also some appearances of titles in tangible magazines.--DimensionWarped 16:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not debating anymore, but at least when the head comes to evalutate and if it is decided to be deleted, we can get an informed reason as to why. --Ssbfalcon 12:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, the fact that notable games may have come from the site and that notable people have been involved with it is frankly irrelevant. My last name is the same as previous winners of Scottish Chess Championships, but that doesn't mean that I should have my own article. The fact that the site is old doesn't mean that it's notable, either. This fails WP:WEB because no coverage has been about the site itself, only games that used the site as a "staging ground." There is no notability by proxy here. syphonbyte (t|c) 18:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Finally! A sign of intelligance! If we're lucky, we'll see someone else explain their reasons... --- End Of Transmission 02:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Couldn't the site meet the requires for being an internet publisher? It is "publishing" and responsible for the "distribution" of these games.Shadixep 18:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Would a merger into the article Sonic Stuff Research Group be appropriate? --Ilascott 02:07, 29 July 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.