Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Whirlpool
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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Discounted are Dark Twilkitri (too few edits, all Wikipedia: to this AfD), unsigned keep was actually a comment by an anon, with the bolded keep added by another editor, SuddenPresence (two edits total, both here) whose actual vote is also numerically discounted, Spigot the Bear (too few edits; 20 total, only 6 to Wiki space, turned up in part to lob insults around). The nominator's userpage does have a sockpuppet tag on it, and it is the IP of User:Omgwtflolz, but I don't see why there is a claim of bad-faith, so I'm not discounting. All of which is slightly academic, because I'm calling a no consensus since the numbers are 5d-3k which is below two-thirds, there is nothing compelling to lower the common threshold, and even the numerically discounted comments do have some content to them. -Splashtalk 03:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] The Whirlpool
Unencyclopedic. 202.156.6.61 03:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC) Note: 202.156.6.61 is a suspected sock puppet.
Delete per nom & nn. --Daniel Lotspeich 03:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep how is this less encyclopedic than Zophar's Domain, GameFAQs, Download.com and so on. --Dark Twilkitri 04:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep, as this is a website that has remained online for over five years and is in fact a part of a hobby's history. If you're going to vote this for deletion, why not take down the entries Dark Twilkitri mentioned too? Kitsune Sniper / David Silva 04:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn. Suggesting that this site is like the links above is akin to noting that my 18 ft sailboat is like the QEII. Dottore So 08:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- That argument could be made for GameFAQs, and possibly Download.com - I may have gone a bit overboard - but I struggle to see how you could make it for Zophar's. In any case, according to here (yes, it is marked as proposed and not finalised, but one wonders whether it is really going to change that much), an article is considered important if There is clear proof that a reasonable number of people are or were concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community). I don't think you'll be able to find that Whirlpool isn't at least well-known in the translation romhacking community - more like it is the most well-known in that community. --Dark Twilkitri 10:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- In that case, then we should delete some of your own articles. I really don't see why Songs to Grow on for Mother and Child is encyclopedic. The point is, the site is a huge part of a subset of videogaming history, and as such, it deserves an article. It's had nearly 4'500,000 visitors in five years of existance. If that doesn't tell you that the site is important, I really don't know what will do so.Kitsune Sniper / David Silva 16:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep (change from delete). Anyone got evidence of the impact this site has had? If so I'd keep it. The Land 09:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - The site was recently featured in the book 'Gaming Hacks' put out by O'Reilly press.
- Delete. Extreme non-notability: all of parodius.com combined has an Alexa rank of 850,000, and The Whirlpool gets less than 20% of that traffic. --Carnildo 22:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- One would think that Alexa results would tend to be biased towards sites visited by the sort of people prepared to have it on their computer. In any case, it isn't a site with universal appeal, so one wouldn't expect it to have a high Alexa ranking. The site is notable in the translation romhacking community, not the entire population. --Dark Twilkitri 01:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - I was fan of the video game console emulation community in the late 1990's. I have heard of this site but it is just not notable to have an article in Wikipedia. It is somewhat popular "underground" news site about Japanese video game console ROM images translated into English or some other language. That's just about it. Wikipedia is not a web guide. Although, I know for certain the website's founder sure loves softcore pornography with red hair ladies. --J. Nguyen 03:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - if the fan translation scene and zophar's domain are notable enough to have articles, surely the whirlpool is. there is a strong case for arguing that it is the most influential fan translation website currently online. --Bngrybt 10:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - "Not encyclopedic?" The site itself is an encyclopedia of games translated to English that were never officially released outside of Japan. It's no different than being an encyclopedia of software emulators (Zophar's Domain) or FAQ files (GameFAQs). It is a conrnerstone in the game translation community such that if it disappeared, much of it's content would be hard to reproduce, as many of the originating sites for the files hosted are no longer online (while The Whirlpool has remained so for five years itself). I would also point out there has been an entry for Whirlpool for over two years at everything2.com, another encyclopedia site. An encylopedia site where not every spiteful/disruptive Joe, Dick, or Mary can press a button to change the content.--SuddenPresence 10:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- It might have an entry there, but it's a comment piece rather than an encyclopedia entry. It was also do you more good if you didn't have a go at Wikipedia when discussing whether an article should be kept here, particularly if it's the first time you've contributed to it. The Land 11:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- I believe it was more of a poke at the spiteful/disruptive Joe, Dick, or Mary (who unsuccessfully tried to hide his identity) than wiki itself. Also (coincidentally ?), he nominated nearly all translation-related entries for deletion. I'm just calling what I'm seeing, brother.--SuddenPresence 22:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- It might have an entry there, but it's a comment piece rather than an encyclopedia entry. It was also do you more good if you didn't have a go at Wikipedia when discussing whether an article should be kept here, particularly if it's the first time you've contributed to it. The Land 11:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep Covered in an O'Reilly book, significant player in a major subset of the videogaming community, nominated by a fuckwit.--Spigot the Bear 18:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- COMMENT regarding the original nomination. This comes from an IP address which is thought to be a proxy. I can't decide whether it is or isn't a sockpuppet and whether or not the nomination is made in good faith. Any views? The Land 13:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- I see no reason to doubt it was made in good faith. --Carnildo 18:35, 20 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
