Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Systemshock

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. The issue is whether we can write a verifiable, neutral-point-of-view article on Systemshock; these two policies are fundamental to Wikipedia. To satisfy them, we need multiple, independent reliable sources (forums, blogs, and wikis generally don't count as reliable) that discuss the subject non-trivially. This is what notability refers to. Although it is clear that Systemshock is mentioned on independent sites, these are generally short references that don't establish notability. The lack of substantial third-party information needed for verifiability means that we cannot sustain an article on Systemshock that conforms to Wikipedia's core policies. — TKD::Talk 00:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Systemshock

  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}}
Systemshock (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A friend brough this article to my attention. Fails WP:WEB, Alexa rank is lower than 100k [1] Computerjoe's talk 18:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete Useless for almost every english speeking person, also it certainly dosen't warrant an article being lower than 100k.--Kkrouni/Ккроунл/ΚκρΩυνι 23:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:BIAS. --User:Krator (t c) 23:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I took a look at the article and was surprised to see that it is about a forum with fewer than 2,000 registered members, which makes it very small beer imo. There is no assertation of notability and I cannot see why it is notable. The usual notability criteria apply here, it needs to have been covered by multiple, independent sources, but I do not see them. It does not seem to have won any awards or distinctions of any kind. In short, I cannot see that the subject meets WP criteria for an encyclopedic article but I'm going to hold off for a couple of days to see what I can find. --Malcolmxl5 02:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I see now that it's an online community site with 2115 members of the forums. However, I can find no online evidence of notability. In fact, there are just ten ghits for Systemshock[2] with the only two relevant hits being to the website itself. I find no independent sources about the site. The Alexa ranking is low. With no evidence of notability provided and none that I can find, I afraid I have to lean towards delete. --Malcolmxl5 11:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Even though the forum only has 2,000 members, it might still be considered a notable forum in South Africa. Thus Weak Keep as per User:Krator --Darkstar 10:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It is considered a notable forum in the South African online community with other forums such as NAG (nag.co.za) who refer users to systemshock for hardware and technical support advice. NAG is a popular South African gaming magazine published on a monthly basis in south africa. User:Howlinmadmurdoc 14:06 13 August 2007 (GMT) — Howlinmadmurdoc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    And do you have any conflict of interest for voting keep?

Computerjoe's talk 15:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Considering myself and another person created and wrote the wiki entry yes it is in my interest to defend it. I am a member of the SystemShock community but this wiki entry was created without the owners and administrators of SystemShock being notified. They were only told of its existance once we were happy with it. As mentioned earlier, the forum is notable in the South African online forum community. the MyADSL forums rank higher but SystemShock comes in 2nd with regards to user activity and traffic. As mentioned earlier SS has a reputation in the SA community for its hardware and overclocking support, New Age Gaming magazine refers its users to Systemshock for advice and support. User:Howlinmadmurdoc 18:24 13 August 2007 (GMT)
  • Comment I question Computerjoe's stance on this. He is affiliated with the Vault9 group (www.vault9.net) which has a history of rivalry and clashes with the SystemShock owners. Whether his decision was influenced by the owners of Vault9 (I assume this is one of the friends he refers to) User:Howlinmadmurdoc 14:17 13 August 2007 (GMT)
  • Comment Alexa is not a reliable source of information when it comes to website rankings. The site has been as high up as under 30 000 in the world. (Tracking Alexa Rank in 2005) It only generates the traffic from people who have the toolbar installed. The site is South African and as such not many people have the toolbar installed. I can very easily get the ranking under 50 000 again by just installing the toolbar on my machine. This is not a valid reason for deletion. I also question the validaty of this claim. Joe has obvious affiliations with vault9 in that blogmad and vault9 are owned by the same people. User:GuildWarsZA 15:58 13 August 2007 (GMT+2) — GuildWarsZA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Disclosure, following Howlingmadmurdoc's allegation: it was pointed out to me by a Vault9 staff member but I was not aware of a rivalry. I nominated the article for deletion as I would any other website with similar 'notability'. Computerjoe's talk 15:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment An assertation has been made that this is a "...notable forum in the South African online community..." but where are the multiple, reliable, third party sources that tells us that? --Malcolmxl5 16:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    Here are a few urls from the New Age Gaming Magazine forums. Gldm, one of the hardware reviewers for the magazine, refers users to SystemShock specifically if they are looking for hardware and technical support, you can view the post here. Miktar, the forum admin and magazine gaming editor, references SystemShock again in his post where he says, "If you are that dedicated to hardware, I really do suggest you sign up at System Shock, which is where all the NAG hardware writers such as Neo, Gldm and such hang out." You can view the post here. Here is another comment by Miktar regarding systemshock. He says the following: "It really is a well-established forum with lots of members and a lot of expertise. I think you may start to see where we're coming from in terms of not trying to compete in that online space - there is no point, especially not when System Shock does so well". You can read it here. I have one more link from the Xtremesystems Forums, a highly active and notable forum with 56,665 members. They referenced a review done by one of SystemShock's members. You can view the thread here. User:Howlinmadmurdoc 20:46 14 August 2007 (GMT)
That's helpful. Thanks. --Malcolmxl5 22:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment In my opinion there is a massive conflict of interest when it comes to this RfD. The fact that Joe is associated with both BlogMad and v9 should have invalidated this request from the start. There is just way too much evidence for this to be just a coincidence. I admit I don't know the policies that govern the day to day running of wikipedia, however, I can't believe there isn't something related to conflict of interests. Staff from one site should not be allowed to nominate "competitive" sites for deletion. Joe has not put forward a RfD since June, yet he happens to put through a RfD for our page on the same day that I mention it on the forums. He was also responsible for creating a vault9 page which has susequently been deleted. User:GuildWarsZA 23:05 14 August 2007 (GMT+2) — GuildWarsZA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
OK, let's put that to one side and concentrate on demonstrating notability. Look at the criteria at WP:WEB. Anything there? An award perhaps? --Malcolmxl5 22:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I've never really been interested in awards. I did however put forward Guild Wars ZA as more of an experiment than anything else. It won an SA Web Award. Go to the site and do a search for Guild Wars ZA. Unfortunately I can't link directly to the search results. Although technically speaking not an award, Guild Wars ZA is also listed on the official Guild Wars website as a fan site. This entails being reviewed by ArenaNet's community team and is no small accomplishment. I will be putting through an application for an upgrade in status to Honored fan site in the next month or so. The site has also been mentioned numerous times in their weekly fan site news. User:GuildWarsZA 07:18 15 August 2007 (GMT+2)
That's helpful, thanks. I have flagged up this AfD with the members of the WikiProject South Africa and also WikiProject Computer science to get some opinion from people with a bit more knowledge in these areas. --Malcolmxl5 07:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ♫ 23:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete the references in the articles are to other forums and directory listing sites, and I do not think they constitute notability Corpx 07:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment There is no reference to directory listings. User:GuildWarsZA 12:24 18 August 2007 (GMT+2)
  • I'd consider the "top 100 sites" a directory listing. Corpx 15:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep We were asked to prove notability in the South African market and I believe we have done so. NAG, as publishers of a computer magazine, acknowledge that SystemShock is the leading source of information in regards to hardware related discussions, with many of their own magazine staff visiting and contributing to the site as well as serving on our staff. I'd also like to point out that both SystemShock and Guild Wars ZA were mentioned in the June Edition of the NAG magazine. They were mentioned in a feature called 'Wocking Websites 3: The Search for Local Wockage'. User:GuildWarsZA 12:24 18 August 2007 (GMT+2) — GuildWarsZA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • One line mentions in a magazine etc is not enough to deem notability. Per WP:N, the article must be either about the site, or mention the site significantly to count towards notability Corpx 16:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete - no notability sourced. Being mentioned by a random editor of a gaming magazine is not enough.--Svetovid 20:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - SystemShock was referenced on South African technology site IOL Technology (Link to article). The website for a local cinema chain was hacked for a second time and IOL refered to SystemShock's coverage of the first hack. Does this qualify as notibility then? HowlinMadMurdoc 10:18, 23 August 2--7 (GMT)
    I doubt it. Is IOL even notable? Computerjoe's talk 13:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    They're only one of the largest media companies in South Africa who print multiple daily newspapers in and around South Africa. This probably isn't the right place for this but can an administrator please advise me where I may lay a formal complaint. GuildWarsZA 15:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    I'm more than happy to tell you where you may lay a complaint. Try WP:RFC. As for IOL, perhaps they are notable: event hough they lack a wiki article they are listed at IOL and have a reasonable Alexa rank (5000ish). Computerjoe's talk 16:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete in the absence of any independet sources establishing notability. Nuttah68 08:50, 24 August 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.