Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ballerium

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled Ballerium.

This page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to delete the article.

Something that doesn't even exist. RickK


 * Delete. Offbeat advert for website. Andrewa 05:39, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, useless ad. DO'Neil 09:04, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Can't people wait until they've released something before spamming Wikipedia to promote it? --Stormie 09:15, May 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Is this RickK person some kind of vandal? There is already a very popular beta up for play at www.ballerium.com which claims to have 7,984 registered users. Do you folks know about google? Eric B. and Rakim 12:57, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * No, RickK is not "some sort of vandal" and calling him one is not calculated to enlist the sympathy of those of us familiar with his work. Vandals do not put their vandalism up for discussion on VfD and honor the resulting consensus. (Hey, that gives me an idea. How about an Approvals for Vandalism page on which vandals could submit proposals for vandalism and seek community consensus before committing same?) Dpbsmith 13:48, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * If he isn't, why is he trying to destroy Wikipedia? Eric B. and Rakim 22:01, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * He isn't, he's nominating pages for discussion and a vote. If the consensus is to delete, it'll be deleted. If not, it won't be. Since Wikipedia is about consensus, that isn't destroying Wikipedia. Average Earthman 08:25, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Deleting articles is still deleting articles. And if you look at this page, it certainly seems like the man wants to delete half of Wikipedia. Eric B. and Rakim 22:56, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking Wikipedia will survive the loss of the Bellerium article if it comes to that. MK 07:14, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikispam. I edited the article to tone down the breezy promotional language, and also to remove the issue of possible copyright violation (the previous text is a duplicate of that appearing at the ballerium site. It's still Wikispam nevertheless. Dpbsmith 13:48, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Ballerium gets quite a few hits on google. However, this article is an ad and possible copyvio. Delete. -- Cyrius|&#9998 22:05, May 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. When it's out of beta feel free to write up a decent stub, but until then non-notable. --Starx 01:49, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Non-notable. Delete. Beelzebubs 01:52, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Why this page should not be deleted .... Since someone accused us of rudely defending it:
 * 41,500 google hits.
 * "ballerium mmorpg" - 14,600 google hits.
 * Featured on gamers hell: ,
 * Featured on MMORPG gamer:
 * Interview with CEO featured on The Wargamer:
 * Featured on Sacred Nemesis:
 * Featured on Tiscali games:
 * Interview with the musicians on The Wargamer:
 * Featured on Online Multiplayer Games Network:
 * Featured on Betawatcher:
 * Featured on UnknownPlayer:
 * Featured at PC Gameworld:
 * Featured at Frictionless Insight (Aug 2002):
 * Alexa directory:
 * Hebrew site:

And so on, and so on. Ballerium is as popular as betas get. Oh, and we didn't write the article. Eric B. and Rakim 22:56, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't care how popular it is. As you said yourselves, it's a beta. I do not believe a beta can be encyclopedic. Let the product come out for release.  Then let it be for another 6 months.  If the product still has publicity and traction after 6 months live, then it might make the cut as encyclopedic.  (As someone else said, this is not like current events where we risk losing content by waiting.) Rossami 01:03, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
 * By the same token, should the following pages also be destroyed? Crystal Space, ScummVM, ZSNES, Tux Racer, Irrlicht, EMule, Xine, Fluxbox, Ogre, Ethereal, MediaWiki... and a lot more. To clarify: all those softwares are in beta, some even in alpha. It seems like your rules for what softwares that should have articles and what softwares that should not are either very inconsistent or very destructive. Eric B. and Rakim 02:13, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Clarify? May I correct you, MediaWiki is long out of beta test, in fact you're using a stable version right now to read this. I don't know about the others you mention. But I'd recommend you leave listing them to users with good contribution records, and the same with discussing this one. AFAIK all the many articles you have written so far have been listed for deletion and will be deleted as unencyclopedic. IMO you aren't entitled to vote on VfD. Sorry. Andrewa 14:28, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Wrong: . And please, take your personal opinion about us to some page where it belongs. May we suggest ? Eric B. and Rakim 21:24, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
 * If you'll notice that sourceforge link you provided lists both an unstable beta and a stable production version. --Starx 23:41, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Fluff. Delete. If you wikify and provide context, articles like these might even survive. But there've been lots of ads for games lately. JFW | T@lk  23:54, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Cabalamat 19:05, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue or the deletion should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.