Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paragon (guild) (2nd nomination)

Add links
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. 6:50, 11 January 2011 Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Paragon (guild)" ‎ (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paragon (guild) (2nd nomination)) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paragon (guild)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Paragon (guild) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of a recently deleted page, less than 24 hours after its previous AfD was resolved. Denied CSD G4 due to the fact that there are indeed more sources present. None Few of the included sources can be verified in English. Article cannot demonstrate how the guild is notable. Clear violation of WP:PROMOTION, Wikipedia is not a place to advertise for your guild. Article author has some WP:OWNERSHIP issues, perhaps some WP:COI as well. RoninBK T C 22:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Corrected a point above, some of the links are indeed in English. -- RoninBK T C 22:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G4: it may have additional sources, but I fail to believe it's any more notable than it was yesterday. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm really confused. Why people say only 1 source is enough, if it's not true? Now it has 13 sources (6 english + 7 finnish), so may I please know why people are against this article or against the sources? --Pek (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whoever told you that one source is enough, is clearly mistaken. The WP:GNG clearly states that multiple non-trivial mentions are required. Secondly, as Scoops has pointed out below, many of the links provided do not qualify as "non-trivial." Thirdly, and probably most important, is that you haven't proven why this needs to be included in an encyclopedia. Pek, you are clearly too involved with the subject to see the obvious consensus. -- RoninBK T C 23:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Non-trivial? Could you explain that word in some "more simple" words? Sorry if I don't understand everything it's just that my home language isn't English. Also, I have never heard that anyone would explain in Finnish Wikipedia that "Why should this article be here?", if the article has the notable sources the subject doesn't matter, does English Wikipedia have totally different rules or whats up with that? --Pek (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I do not delve too much into other versions of Wikipedia, but I can tell you that the English version does not constitute listing rosters for World of Warcraft guilds and saying that they're important to Finnish culture. Furthermore, the fact that you disregarded our consensus and recreated the page on a whim does not impress for this page to be in existence. DarthBotto talk•cont 01:57, 05 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I didn't make the second vote because it would increase articles chances for staying, I did it because we had conversation going on with user Hobit, who didn't answer important question before article was deleted. --Pek (talk) 13:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As I read the article right now, there are 12 sources. Two of them are serious news agencies. One did a 2 minute clip on the group. I don't think that's very significant coverage. The other has a six minute audio piece. I have trouble calling that significant, too. A third source looks like a tech blog (translations are a bit rough), which I have trouble taking seriously, with it's current front-page story about boobs in Final Fantasy. Between those three, I have trouble calling it "significant coverage from multiple reliable sources". The other 9 sources are press releases/even-less-reliable-blogs. I'd also note that all the coverage seems to be focused on one event: beating the Wrath of the Lich King expansion. It makes me wonder if it might not be better to include a brief mention of them in that article. » scoops “5x5„ 23:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is only 1 blog, which is not even for sure is it blog or some sort of "blog-interview" and your talking about many blogs? --Pek (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As Finnish i do little summary about those three. YleX is one of Yle's (Finnish national broadcasting company) nationwide radio channels. Btw i guess there was probably longer interview in radio than in web. Easily can be counted as point for notability. Nelonen is one of four Finland's main tv-channels and mentioning their prime time news is kind of relevant also. Edome is also one of finlands big gaming news sites and it can be counted as credit also (in finnish point of view). Wowmagazine (dead tree magazine) and Esport (web magazine) are smaller and can be used as information sources but those aren't so good for reviewing the notability. ----Zache (talk) 08:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I still can't read the sources, but if there is coverage from two serious news agencies and the coverage consists of a 2-minute video clip and a 6 minute audio clip, I'd say we've got multiple reliable sources with non-trivial coverage. If the 3rd identified good source is actually reliable we're in solid shape. Hobit (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And given the non-promotional language and general stubby nature of the article, I really don't see a promotion problem here. Hobit (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can read a lot of the sources. I'd say the English sources pretty much get us there. We have a number of RSes (though not all indpendent) saying that this is the best at what they do in the world. The sources meet WP:N and the group is clearly notable in the English sense of the word. I mean companies are paying to bring them to the US so people can meet and watch them. That's pretty impressive really. Hobit (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We already settled this- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paragon (guild). If anything should be done beyond deleting this page again, it should be addressing the creator about disregarding the consensus and reasoning behind the original page's deletion. DarthBotto talk•cont 02:00, 05 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article was deleted for not meeting notability requirements and there was a request in said discussion for the article to be sourced. It is now created anew as a sourced article and should be looked at again. I've no problem with this being deleted again (though I think it shouldn't be, I don't need to be right), but to accuse the creator of bad faith isn't appropriate. Hobit (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Notability isn't the only reason that the article was being considered for deletion. There's also the question of whether this meets the question of What Wikipedia is not. Throwing sheer numbers of dubious sources at the article does not answer the question of whether it is appropriate for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Unfortunately the closing admin didn't add a closing summary, so we can't say for sure what the ultimate reason was. -- RoninBK T C 02:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally think that if the gaming community comes from game like World of Warcraft it is more notable if it would come from some very unknown and unpopular game. Anyway as stated earlier Paragon is very well known around World of Warcraft, and the fact that the work is done by 35 player out of 12 million should ring a bell in everyones mind. --Pek (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Raiding guilds, while apparently a mentionable part of the game, are not notable for me. The fact that these raiding guilds have been ranked is notable maybe, and if there happened to be such a thing as official rading guild rankings or something like that, the fact could be mentioned in the main WoW article. Individual winners, however, don't count as notable for me, no matter how much the Finnish media likes to mention anything and everything Finnish that has gained even a little fame. Pitke (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "no matter how much the Finnish media likes to mention anything and everything Finnish that has gained even a little fame.", you probably don't realize how hard it is to actually be a number #1 World of Warcraft guild in the world. I wouldn't say that being number #1 guild (35 players from 12 million) is a little fame. --Pek (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except that world rank #1 is more valuable then state rank #1 and the plumber will never have a sources, these guys do have them. --Pek (talk) 09:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also to add that being plumber is not same thing as being extremely competitive World of Warcraft player. --Pek (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One more addition that not all of the 8 million population are plumbers, but we are talking here about 12 million actual players in-game, so that is very bad example of yours. --Pek (talk) 09:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure if you're following his comparison. Regardless, attempting to find international information on this subject is extremely limited, apart from their official website. Electronic sports teams that constitute several divisions of well-renowned and public, (not anonymous), players have few pages as it is, due to the fact that multiple sources, magazines, news broadcasts, multi-million dollar websites, etc. cover their existence and are easy to find. Besides Blizzard giving out achievements for successful World of Warcraft players, supportive evidence of this subject's notoriety is in high question. Look, if you had re-created this page after it was deleted and made it seem legitimate and neatly done, your peers would certainly be more lenient in their judgment. However, this page is a few short questions that state that it is popular because of World of Warcraft, nothing more. You have had time to look for sources, but you rather have been disregarding the common consensus of everyone else. There's not much more to be said, considering this page was already deleted. DarthBotto talk•cont 05:10, 07 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pek said, being plumber is not same thing as being extremely competitive World of Warcraft player. He is correct. In a typical 40-hour-a-week year, a plumber would spend 2000 hours on his craft. To be among the top plumbers in the city, nation or world, one imagines he'd need 10-15 years of experience. In some places, plumbers are required to pass examinations to prove their knowledge in order to be certified, so there may well be more than the 20-30 thousand hours required. Additionally, plumbers are actually paid for plumbing - some in the US charge almost what (inexpensive) lawyers charge. So, Pek is correct. Being an extremely competitive WoW player is not the same as being a plumber. Being a plumber is harder, more profitable and more useful. I mean, has anyone ever had to call a WoW player to stop their home from being destroyed? --Habap (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would say keep it if it weren't for the fact he made it -so- quickly after the last deletion. Although there are more sources I still do not believe that the guild is notable enough in English terms. Perhaps on the Finnish Wikipedia but right now it has no notability to be on the English one. User:Dobat Dobat the Hobbat 13:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • See the comment on top of this page: "I didn't make the second vote because it would increase articles chances for staying, I did it because we had conversation going on with user Hobit, who didn't answer important question before article was deleted.". --Pek (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion I'm afraid we're having something lost in translation, I don't quite understand fully what you mean by 'second vote'. And even if Hobit did not answer your question and even if you had waited to create the article to find more sources. I still do not believe it fits properly in what a article should be. The guild is clearly notable but to have it's own page for it seems a bit far in anybodies mind. User:Dobat Dobat the Hobbat 15:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on current English article sources -- OnRPG is currently under consideration as a reliable source, but general consensus is thus far is that it's unreliable. The Republic of Gamers link is a site run by the company Asus, and so may be seen as a WP:SPS to promote their hardware as their about us page (and pretty much every article on the site) seems to imply Joystiq is a situational source and thus reliability of the author should be demonstrated. Normally I wouldn't question this, but Matt Low seems to have some of experience. I wouldn't necessarily call him reliable, but I don't know that I'd say he's unreliable either - so it could go either way depending on the thoughts of those who know about establishing author reliability. The assembly.org link is extremely short, and so could only be used after notability has been established. I have no further opinion on the matter - I'm just commenting on the sources. --Teancum (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete (vote changed from above) - Thank you, Teancum. It appears you are correct that consensus is against OnRPG as a reliable source. This being the case, there is no evidence of coverage in multiple independent reliable sources and as such the article must be deemed non-notable and deleted. Vote changed accordingly. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paragon_(guild)_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1142243944"