Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aegis (online game)


 * 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, Article fails the notability guidelines due to the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Aegis (online game)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No claims of notability, fails WP:WEB, no citations from reliable, third-party, published sources, past (and likely future) copyright violations due to publisher being involved with editing. Wyatt Riot (talk) 10:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete – Written like an advertisement; no NPOV, no verifiable sources. MuZemike (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Do NOT delete - this article was useful to me, and most likely is and will be to others wikipedians as well. In my view, this is the essence of Wikipedia. Ryttaren (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, an article simply being useful doesn't justify its existence. Remember that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately? Dear Wyatt, we make the rules. If you disagree with one of the many guide-lines you like to quote, be bold and ignore it. Remember that the main purpose of Wikipedia is being useful for readers. In this particular case however, there's no need to ignore or change any rules: "WP:NOT/indiscr. collection of inf." consists of 5 no-nos (FAQ, Plot summaries, Lyrics dbs, News reports); the article under discussion doesn't belong to any of this. Kind regards Ryttaren (talk) 03:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your first, second and third argument is one and the same.
 * Past violations is by no means a reason to delete a current, non-violating article. If it were, a vandal could insert copyrighted material on any and all articles he wanted removed.
 * Likely future violation??? Well now, this is notable indeed, let's create an article.Ryttaren (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally consider claims of notability and actual notability to be separate issues (you can have one without the other), as is a lack of citations from reliable sources. I also mentioned the copyright violations because it appears that the publisher is encouraging some users (employees maybe?) to violate Wikipedia policy regarding copyrights going back to the very first incarnation of this article, and because advertisement and copyright infringement are valid reasons for deletion. Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, claim and actual nb are different, I wasn't aware that both are part of the "guideline" language. Past and "likely future" violations should not be part of any assesment criterion however. If they were, we might as well mark all articles for deletion, since it's likely that someone, somewhere, sometime has or will make any or all articles in violation with some past, present or future "guideline". Best Ryttaren (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom - advert, unverifiable. andy (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom - It's an advert for the game, with no notability established, and lacks verifiability. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING. I looked and could find no independent sourcing for the subject.--Finalnight (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's great you looked. Lack of independent sourcing is not a WP:ADS issue, however. The article is clearly not blatant spam. If you think it's written like an advertisment, please consider cleaning it up, or tagging it with Cleanup-spam. Kind regards Ryttaren (talk) 03:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know about my typo, its fixed now. To further my delete position, note that WP:NOTADVERTISING is based off WP:CORP which as the following criteria:
 * ''A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content.


 * The "secondary sources" in the criterion include reliable published works in all forms, such as (for example) newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[1] except for the following:
 * ''Press releases; autobiographies; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people.[2] Material that is self-published, or published at the direction of the subject of the article, would be a primary source and falls under different policies.
 * Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories.


 * So the sources issue does matter. Also, I am strongly starting to suspect some form of sockpuppetry was involved with the creation and work done on this article. A series of accounts and ip's have worked on this article that have not had any other significant contributions to wikipedia. One edit in particular asked what "we" should do to fix the article. I wonder if we should request a checkuser for sockpuppetry.--Finalnight (talk) 06:00, 29 June 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.