Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Archangels Of Destruction

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 on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 22:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Archangels Of Destruction

More Stargate Wars cruft, this time a clan. There's no need to have an article on a nn clan in a nn online game. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete The #1 alliance is now my #1 deleted article on Wikipedia --Ryan Delaney ^talk 09:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete of course. It would be nice if clans could be speedied. Oh well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep. AManinblack: Please don't abuse your administrative powers by deleting all the articles I create or contribute to. To quote my argument against your proposal to delete the Stargate Wars article: "Has anyone actually read 'What wikipedia is not' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information)?I quote : "Subjects [people] of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives." However: no where in that OFFICIAL article by the wikipedia admin does it say that non-human subjects (i.e. Clans, as a clan itself is not human, but the members of the clan are; Online games, such as Stargate Wars) need to be 'notable'." What have I ever done to you that deserves this? ZPMMaker 12:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

This isn't a personal vendetta. Non-notable games aren't encyclopedic material, and players of those non-notable games are certainly not encyclopedic material. I used my administrative powers to speedily delete two articles on Stargate Wars players, per Criteria for speedy deletion A7, and I'm nominating the other things for deletion normally (which is something any user can do).
While it isn't written in stone that a subject needs to be notable, in practice the vast majority of things (games included) need to have some evidence of notability, particularly if they're largely interchangable units in a homogenous whole (for example, Kings of Chaos clones). Efforts to write a notability guideline or policy have run into problems where people can't decide if notability applies to this or that sort of thing (places, towns, schools, roads, etc.) and there is a minority of users who don't feel notability should be a factor in these decisions, but the vast majority of Wikipedians require evidence of notability from the vast majority of things, web-based online games included. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes I realise that characters/users need to be notable (and as such have even agreed with you on your deletion page for UNKNOWN, as I have now read said 'rules' and realise this requirement). However, it does not say anywhere that a subject (non-individual, i.e. a road, city, internet-game...) needs to be notable; I realise that it is expected, but it is not a necessary requirement of Wikipedia. If all encyclopaediae worked on this basis, small insignificant (not-notable) things like an 'Aardvark' or some extinct animal (other than those dinosaurs; they ARE notable) wouldn't even get into it! To quote Encyclopedia, an Encyclopaedia (such as Wikipedia) is a 'compendium of knowledge'. Thus, all knowledge, regardless of notability, should be included. I realise that some of the things that some users post on Wikipedia are absolutely wrong (i.e. making an article dedicated to the fact that the moon is made of cheese (and making an article dedicated to the theory that the moon is made of cheese)), but other articles that are made are actually genuine in its' validity - regardless of the subjects' notability - are being unjustly deleted based on their notability. Now I do believe that there needs to be better ways of proving that information is correct by Wikipedia and it's users/administrators. Perhaps we could discuss such methods on my talk pages (it'd take up too much space here, and would be irrelevant to the deletion process). ZPMMaker 08:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not catalog every person, every website, every toy, every intersection, every book, every song, every issue of every magazine, every model of computer, every day, or every building, nor should it. It's an absolutely hopeless, pointless goal to try to catalog every fact (rather than offer a useful overview of human understanding). Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If you look through a week's worth of AFD logs, you'll find that notability is a criterion: many of Wikipedia's rules are unwritten.

Any information in this article will rot quickly and may very quickly become moot (and will indeed be forgotten) if the game goes out of business/is C&D'ed, and, in the meantime, this game's impact is limited and influence nonexistent. Should it become notable in some way outside of a corner of the Stargate fandom (totally unscientific note: I've hit up several hardcore SG-1 fans and they've never heard of this game), then an article can be written, but until then, there's no need for this article. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Fine! Be like that! lol. All Stargate people who like this article (as well as the Stargate Wars article: I have copied the article onto my own website where this, and articles like this, are guarenteed acceptance (it must be Stargate though....). Also, what's "C&D'ed" mean? Legally (by most national and international constitutions/laws/legislatures), all rules must be written for them to be acted upon/enforced. Why does this not apply here? I'm not saying that Wikipedia is stupid, so don't get the wrong idea; I think that these rules that newbies don't know about need to be written! ZPMMaker 07:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Make sure you give the authors credit, to satisfy the GFDL (the hippie granola open-source license Wikipedia licenses its content under).

C&D = Cease and desist; Stargate Wars is one cease-and-desist letter from whoever owns Stargate from being shut down. (Someone mentioned "Foxing" in one of these AFDs - same thing.)

Lastly, welcome to Wikipedia, where, like many online communities, many of the rules of conduct are not written down, particularly in the case of some of the more esoteric background infrastructure processes such as AFD. I agree that they should all be written down (or as many as possible, anyway), but trying to write a notability guideline has been a difficult process that has yet to produce any fruit. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:47, 19 October 2005 (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.