User talk:Nicolay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Proposed deletion of ClanBase

An article that you created, ClanBase, has been proposed for deletion, for the following reason:

spam, biased

Wikipedia has certain standards for inclusion that all articles must meet. Certain types of article must establish the notability of their subject by asserting its importance or significance. Additionally, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, content inappropriate for an encyclopedia, or content that would be more suited to somewhere else (such as a directory or social networking website) is not acceptable. See What Wikipedia is not for the relevant policy.

You are welcome to improve the article to meet these standards and remove the deletion notice. You may also remove the notice if you disagree with the deletion; note that in this case, the article may be discussed further at Articles for deletion. Thank you – Gurch 21:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Nicolay wrote:

Hey,

I just noticed that the article on ClanBase has been deleted, citing "spam, biased" as reasons. I'm not a savvy Wikipedia user, so forgive me if I'm directing this at the wrong person.

I don't understand this. Yes, it may be biased because it as far as I know was written mostly by ClanBase users/crew members such as myself, but I don't think there were any exaggerations or misstated facts. With more than 1.6 million members, ClanBase is one of the largest online gaming leagues in the world. That is a fact. I would be thrilled if someone unbiased would write an article about it, but nobody has, so is it better to have no info on ClanBase than to have a factual article written by fans of the organization? I doubt that ClanBase is the only subject for which this is the case in Wikipedia.

Cheers, Nico 18:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't actually nominate the article for deletion; I just replaced a request for speedy deletion with a proposed deletion tag, as the article didn't meet the speedy deletion criteria. (Articles which meet the speedy criteria can be deleted immediately, otherwise articles are deleted after five days if nobody objects). However I am an administrator, so I can help you with your query.

If you disagree with the deletion, you may request that it be restored and that the issue of deletion be discussed more fully (just ask me or another administrator). If you do so, it will be listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where any editor (yourself included) can give their opinion; once discussion is complete the article may be deleted again or it may be kept depending on consensus.

Looking at the deleted revisions of the article, though, there were a few problems with the article which I think would need to be addressed if it was re-created. Calling the page "spam" was a bit unfair, as it was not; the concern that it may be biased is a legitimate one, however more important is the issue of verifiability and a general lack of reliable sources. It's probably best if I point you to our "official" content policies rather than trying to explain everything here. I recommend you read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (which addresses bias), and the policies on verifiablility, sources and reliable sources. Articles about online groups and websites often have notability issues too, though I don't think that's a problem in this case, so don't worry about it too much. Hope this helps – Gurch 18:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)