Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squeebs Online

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. There are fewer than 25 references to this game online, and no third-party references are provided in the article. It's simply not notable. KrakatoaKatie 18:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Squeebs Online

Squeebs Online (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable GameMaker game, 750 individual players does not make a game notable. No reliable sources, and not verifiable. Looks like a vanity article ("once Saiklo gets his laptop we will have a full time server!"). Melsaran (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The laptop part has been removed long ago, also the 750 is a rumor and we(the people editing the article) are waiting for someone to find a direct proof-list before (if its true) we put it back up. Everything said on this article is on the main linked website and subdomain, both of which are owned by the creator of the game.
--Space 19:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[Forgive my rushed typing]


  • Delete - The article seems to be more of an advertisement than anything else. The newly-created accounts that are editing the article all seem to have been created just for this purpose. Green Giant 12:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
'Newly created accounts': I dont find that for most of the people who edited this, Page creator 'contributions' that stretch before Squeebs.
75.38.13.198 , 65.27.251.59 , 71.238.131.203 , 210.79.177.2 , 124.169.35.143 are not accounts created, and so there is no proof of how new/old they are to wikipedia, or if they have made other contributions - IP's can change, also note, most of them made pretty minor changes, like typo's. And me, My account is older than squeebs, only I never really contributed to anythign else that comes to head, besides that, i only modified badly written paragraphs describing low-priority parts of the artical like Bosses, and Guilds. (my account was made June 2006, this is proof)
King laigonaz, mabye, but he did not write any biased information, only all open facts about the game field, eg. Guilds.
Jengajam2
Advertising: Lets take a look at this main pageline

Squeebs Online is a free online game programmed with a game development tool called Game Maker, and by Dino-cool. It is aimed at people of ages 13 and up.

Firstly, it points out the tool its made with, the author, and agegroup.
The history section had 'growing substancially' type info, but that has been removed also. Everything else is game fields eg. Guilds, Bosses, Enemies, Areas, straightforward things, you dont see everything catalogued and explained in very many 'advertisements'.
--Space 19:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[Forgive my rushed typing]
So this article is not being edited entirely by new accounts? OK I change it to "almost entirely by new accounts". Granted that Darkmast508 made edits before this article but most of those were made in a single sitting to one article - hardly a stretch, and Cb43569 who has made four edits, including two to Squeebs Online. Apart from one established editor who corrected a spelling error, and two other established editors who made edits related to this deletion proposal, all of the other contributors are newly created:
As for the IP's, one IP out of seven could fit into your suggestion - 202.56.69.13 (1 edit to Squeebs Online, two other edits previously, which could have been by someone unrelated). All of the other IP's editing this article have never made any other edits on Wikipedia:
So overall four out of six contributing accounts are new and have contributed only to Squeebs Online, while six out of seven contributing IP's have contributed only to Squeebs Online. Call me a cynic but it seems more than likely that someone who plays Squeebs Online, decided to "advertise" this online game on Wikipedia and has recruited other "players" to help edit. Green Giant 20:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
It is VOLUNTARY work by fans doesnt look to me like we're 'recruited' to promote the article, we're just shown it, and as a community project; to keep it up as a factual source. Also: pretty useless: 210.79.177.2, 210.79.199.2 both look router to me-ip changes a lot on routers, but seriously, bwe're providing factual information
Also the mass majority are fed up, as its being marked as an advert, even though its being neutral and explained in overview and fact, just because we are new accounts/havent done edits before doesnt mean we cant make an article, i edit on the sandbox for practice because i never previously tried any editing before on wikipedia, but the editing i did do before it was fairly simple. Most of the IP'ers never bothered even looking at wikipedia, but they want to expand the FACTUAL article of their/favourite game, anything wrong with that?
Also, stick to the point: tell me, quote 'where' it is biased and favouring good, rather being blissfully ignorant and just claiming it an advert. There are some one-articlers, not vandalisers, that edited the article on lemons - big deal. Space 22:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[rushed typin]
  • To access that link I would have to join up, so we can't really verify what you are saying. If this is voluntary work by fans, then I suggest you find some free space on a webhost somewhere - please read this official policy which states that Wikipedia is not your webhost.
  • As to the IP's, router or not, 210.79.177.2 still only made one edit and that to Squeebs. If there were lots of edits made to different articles by that IP, I would agree with you.
  • The History section starts with - "Squeebs is growing at a great pace, and it has improved massively since it first started out back in april.". Now if this is written by a fan on the behest of the link you provided, then it is blatant advertising.
  • The section on User-Submission contains unencyclopedic material - "You can submit game ideas, weapons, armour, monsters, accessories and maps. Some suggestions and designs may never make it into the game, as staff memembers might not be able to manage adding them to the game, or it may not be necessary/appropriate for the game." You won't find Wikipedia articles on other games giving such advice.
  • The article on lemons is something "tangible" with plenty of references and plenty of contributors even though I doubt anybody edited that article on behalf of some fruit company.
  • Basically, the fact you claim to be fans, brings up another issue - you have a conflict of interest which means you should avoid editing articles where you have a close personal connection, which you find discussed here.
Green Giant 00:03, 18 October 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.