Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WOPH

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. Sr13 (T|C) 03:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WOPH

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

Non-notable Warcraft mod/expansion/derivative (the article doesn't even really define what it is). No reliable sources furnished, and the article skews toward advertising in tone. Prod contested by the main contributor, so I'm sending it here. —C.Fred (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

  • It is not as mainstream as DOTA. Why don't you try opening the woph site? or play it? or help editing it so that it doesn't have the advertising tone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slugonice (talk • contribs) 01:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete as non-notable custom game. The only assertion of notability is in the Recognition and Popularity section. If I'm reading this correctly it only asserts that an unspecified number of people have played it, and some amateur musicians used some of the music as inspiration. If none of these musicians or their songs would pass wikipedia's guidelines for notability, why would one possible influence pass? Many games have the ability to customize gameplay, it would be a phenomenon if any such custom game were to become so notable that it would be mentioned in multiple non-trivial secondary sources. But while that phenomenon may someday occur, it certainly hasn't in the case of this article's subject. -Markeer 02:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as a non-notable custom game. Is not cited with "multiple non-trivial secondary sources" and unlikely ever to be. Sr13 (T|C) 06:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, non-notable. --Phoenix (talk) 07:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Simply not notable. JodyB talk 11:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It is a custom game catered to the Philippine gamers. You can't expect it to be as mainstream as DOTA. www.woph.co.nr lists over 300 members and growing. Slugonice 14:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment A mere three hundred members? Again, this tells me this is a relatively minor game in the grand scheme of things—and is less likely to be notable. —C.Fred (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • NOTABILITY?
A "mere'?
"Notability guidelines do not equate to personal or biased considerations, such as: "never heard of this", "an interesting article", "topic deserves attention", "not famous enough", "very important issue", "popular", "I like it", "only of interest to [some group]", etc.'
Ehem... looks like you're bordering on that line. Slugonice 15:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
    • "[T]his tells me...[it] is less likely to be notable." I'm not saying it makes it non-notable; I'm saying there's a mathematically lower probability that it is, all else being equal. A game with three million users has almost certainly received coverage in independent published sources, which is the major criterion of WP:N. Three thousand users, it might have received coverage. Three hundred users...I'm not saying it hasn't received coverage, I'm just saying likelihood is dwindling. —C.Fred (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Did you just delete the other sources I posted here? It was here a while agoSlugonice 15:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I did not. Another editor did, so I'm restoring here.
        It does not appear that any of them qualify under WP:RS, though. —C.Fred (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Three hundred FORUM users is not equal to three hundred WOPH players. It is played in thousands of internet cafes around the country... The main reason it has only around 300-400 users is that, the WOPH moved it's FORUMS to another server. Slugonice 16:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I've stricken my comments above relating to the 300 users figure, since the forum is a side issue to the game itself. The non-notability of forums about the game are not an issue to the notability of the game. We're still where we are: no independent publishes sources about the game; everything cited seems to be self-published, blogs, or forums. —C.Fred (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete game mods and maps are pretty much non-notable by definition, and nothing in the article suggests this is one of the very rare exceptions. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Infrangible 01:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment okay, ill be posting ones that do not relate to self-published, blogs, or forums User:slugonice 06:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Slugonice: hopefully to simplify discussion here, please keep in mind that above and beyond all other considerations, including numbers of players, etc, the first rule of notability is that a subject is covered in a non-trival way in multiple secondary sources. I respect that you seem to be willing to improve this article to meet wikipedia standards and I strongly suggest that you start there. If this project is notable, there has been coverage of it in newspapers, magazines, trade journals, etc. Those need to be mentioned (with verifiable citations). -Markeer 00:51, 7 May 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.