Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual Family Kingdom

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 due to lack of reliable sources and possible conflicts of interest. --Selket Talk 21:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Virtual Family Kingdom

Virtual Family Kingdom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Soon-to-be-released kids' virtual world (apparently a knock-off of another soon-to-be-closed one). No third party sources, fails WP:WEB miserably. I smell spam. Vary | Talk 13:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  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}}
  • delete unless independent reliable sources can be provided to demonstrate notability. There has been one independent source added to the article, here, since it was tagged for {{Primary Sources}}, but it isn't enough to verify notability. It's difficult to search this term, as it brings up a number of unrelated pages, but I've given it a shot and come up with a lot of unusable sources. Mind you, I do come up with a lot. Notability is distinct from fame or popularity, but it does underscore the possibility that even if the unreleased game does not meet notability guidelines for inclusion, the released game will. Any close of this as deletion should, of course, not prejudice against re-creation of the article with sufficient sources to verify. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Just caught a copy (complete with AfD notice) appearing at Vfk, which doesn't make it smell any less spammy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Why should this be deleted? I need an actual reason. Acefredfred (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

OpposeThis is not spam! the Virtual family Kingdom is an attempt by former VMK players (like me) to establish a new safe haven to replace the one that they will be losing on Wednesday. It's just that the article is not written properly (more like an ad). What I think needs to be done, is that the article should be left alone until Thursday the 22nd (game opening day), so someone can actually see what the game is about. And, yes, the article is significant, because as I said before, it is an event that happened as a result of the closing of a widely popular game. I will make a few changes, then I think that it should be left dormant until the 22nd.--Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited. The game needs press coverage of its own in order to pass WP:WEB. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball; we don't keep unsourced articles to see if reliable sources appear later. We delete them, and recreate them if and when it's possible to write a properly sourced article on the subject. But at any rate, the afd wont' close until the 23rd, after the game's scheduled opening, so if the game receives substantial coverage from reliable sources on the 22nd, those sources can be added to the article then. -- Vary | Talk 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I notice, for one, the nom seems more than a little biased. And I also oppose per Princess Janay. KC109 21:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC).

Awesome. Thanks, Vary. I made a few changes to the article already.--Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable and lacking 3rd party reliable sources for proper verification. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems this discussion was accidentally removed from the May 18 AFD page. It's been added to the May 20 page, which presumably means that the discussion will now end on May 25. -- Vary | Talk 14:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: I appreciate that the players of the defunct game wish to keep their fun going; as a player in failed MMORPGS, I wish them well. What they haven't established, however, is how this new game passes WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:WEB for a Wikipedia article. As far as I can see, the alleged "bias" of the nom equates to the nom citing correct deletion grounds under policy. The easiest way to save this article is to provide multiple independent, third-party, reliable sources about this subject; newspaper or magazine articles about it will suffice.  RGTraynor  14:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Too many problems with this article, as witness the tags on the article's page. Added to those are the problems cited above, particularly WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. I don't like to rain on anyone's parade, but there are too many issues here. Drieux (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose this article - There are simply no reliable sources here. If some can be found, I may be willing to alter my recommendation but otherwise this article must go. Arkyan 20:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails all WP's above. Making this an article would be like making VMK pal an article.Dacheatcode (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you people just not understanding what I'm saying? The game is new. In fact, it was made very, very recently. It is so new, that gaming magazines haven't caught wind of it yet. Can't you guys use the sources already there, and wait until the internet provides more sources?--Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Reply: We do understand that, yes. The problem is that Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. We must base all articles on reliable sources written by independent third parties, and the answer to the question "But what if something is new?" is "Then we cannot have an article on it yet." A number of links have been given to our relevant content policies and guidelines, including WP:CRYSTAL, WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOT. I recommend you review them if you've any questions about the nature of those policies.  RGTraynor  23:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete No references towards notability. Thanks! (and I'll stop rambling now), ‽² (Talk²/Contributions²) 00:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB and WP:NN, as mentioned above. ZappyGun (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose It will be notable once it opens, which is a matter of days. Surely it should just be given the benefit of the doubt? 82.5.85.97 (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete As per RGTraynor. This article fails to establish notability using multiple third party resources. That's just basic policy. Maybe later, if this game eventually gets released and attracts attention, it will be notable and someone can create a proper article. But until then it does not belong on wikipedia. Randomran (talk) 05:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The article can be recreated when and if it is notable. And that isn't necessarily when it's released. Some games that have never been released are notable, some that have been out for years never will be. I understand people's desire to keep the article up so as to draw more attention to the project, but Wikipedia is a tertiary source. That means it reports what second parties report about the subjects. So once it has achieved significant second-party coverage, try again. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. At least not notable before release, and maybe not even then – but that's another discussion. --EivindJ (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You know what? Delete it. But, I will just rewrite it with more sources. I'm going to have to scout out some sources over the internet.--Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: I'm sure no one would have any objections to the article being recreated at a point down the road when there has been significant third-party coverage by reliable sources.  RGTraynor  13:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, VFK is new, but there is no reason to make an article about it when their are not much recources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dacheatcode (talk • contribs) 20:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - no non-trivial coverage from reliable sources to pass WP:WEB. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - article has not been built on WP:V; no prejudice at all against recreation later, if it receives more attention from the press. Marasmusine (talk) 08:08, 24 May 2008 (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.