Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Senile Team (2nd nomination)

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 keep. ignoring the SPAs, 3 establishededitors saying keep, only the nom saying delete. sppsrently produced some notable games. Already relisted once DGG ( talk ) 17:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Senile Team

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no real notability shown for this company. sources provided show no significant coverage in independent reliable sources and none found with significant coverage. nothing satisfying wp:corp. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. 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 may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here are some [1] [2] [3] [4] interviews, for example. As far as Indie games go, these are decent imho. Article is currently in bad shape with unsuitable material and references, but that can be fixed with a little effort. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All are the company/group talking about themselves so are not independent. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it is somebody else who is talking to them. I am not sure what you mean by "independent"; if you mean that the sources are supposed to be secondary, then I agree that these are not the best references. However, these are published reliably and not against policy to use. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not somebody else who is talking about them. They are talking about themselves. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say "about them", I said "to them". Of course, they are talking about themselves. And that (i.e. primary source) does not establish notability. The attention from media (i.e. press willing to interview) is what establishes notability. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for obvious reasons. Articles like this can provide useful information to anyone interested in independent video games, especially but not limited to the Dreamcast scene (an area where Wikipedia has been quite uninformative for a surprisingly long time), and also serve to interconnect other relevant information. Of course the article will have to be improved. That shouldn't be too hard, although many editors will probably be reluctant to touch the article now that it has been targeted for deletion. Nobody likes to see their hard work go to waste. 87.211.187.132 (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC) — 87.211.187.132 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:Useful does not imply WP:Notable. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Touché. 87.211.187.132 (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThere are numerous reviews in print media with Senile Team. Senile Team IS an independent team. I see no real reason for deletion--79.235.51.134 (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC) — 79.235.51.134 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep That Senile Team is notable is out of question. There are other articles in Wikipedia which are really not notable. Nevertheless. Please check the meaning of the word 'encyclopedia'. The article is not too well written, but better make some suggestion how to overwork it instead of deleting it. Sorry, but I can't see the point in that. --79.235.85.162 (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC). — 79.235.85.162 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This really is not a vote and you need to support your opinion with arguments that are based on Wikipedia policies/guidelines, in this case, mainly notability (and independent sources) as majority of references are primary sources. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Offsite canvasing. I just found this so I'm reopening and relisting this discussion.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I said "keep", I also did respond to anons not having referred to any guidelines/policies. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes I did notice that but what I missed is that every !vote in this discussion aside from yours was from an SPA. I usually catch those. I agree with you that this article might be savable but now there will be editors showing up and !voting "delete" only because of the canvassing. Similar situation happened to me at this AFD.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Respect to H3llkn0wz, someone argueing one way and asking those who argue the same way to give good reasons. One person who comes out of this debate looking very good. Respect. duffbeerforme (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - In this case they don't have good reasons as they are not regular wikipedia editors and don't know our guidelines. The only thing they know is that someone showed up in their forum, said "frog" and they jumped. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. "Notability" means that someone has "taken note of" a subject. Yes, in interviews subjects are talking about themselves but when a reporter/reviewer elects to interview someone, he is "taking note of" that someone. However, I would much rather see writeups from journalists to go along with those interviews which is what the nom was looking for and couldn't find. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I re-edited the article with the sources I could find. Without CRYSTALling too much, I think Wii release of Rush Rush Rally Racing will gather more attention. If this does come to deleting, I would like this userfied. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't understand the logic of deleting pages that call people in to vote and save something. I am the one who posted that thread and regardless of posting that thread I worked on improving the article, I took the feedback available and provided more noteable secondary references. Why exactly do we want to delete this page. The company was represented at this years Gamescom, when they make a press release, Kotaku reports it among other sites. So what more is need for it's significance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cube b3 (talk • contribs)

Keep Strong references have been added. The reopening for the deletion is devoid of logic. It is irrelevant if there is a discussion on their websites forum. There is a concept called freedom of speech.--79.235.48.49 (talk) 12:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between freedom of speech and Wikipedia policy on WP:verifiability. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely Keep Senile Team is mentioned around the globe. The external references on the Wiki-Page substantiate this. There are articles listed in Wiki which are much less relevant. Please remember Wikipedia is a encyclopedia.--79.235.118.246 (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Also, being an encyclopaedia does not imply every subject is to be included. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Senile Team has to be mentioned on Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but the 2nd nomination for deletion sound more like a farce to me. Please keep the objectivity here.--79.235.122.170 (talk) 13:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the nomination sounds farce to you or you believe Senile Team has to be mentioned, does not address the Wikipedia's inclusion/notability guidelines. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because of the aforementioned reasons!--79.235.54.240 (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should also mention that acquiring new IPs does not hide the obvious fact that your IPs are all from the same ISP/locale. You are more likely to affect the outcome of this discussion by presenting a single well-formed opinion, rather than posting multiple times. Remember, this is not a head count, and you are more likely to be blocked for WP:Sockpuppetry. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:42, 9 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.