Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battrick


 * 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 No Consensus. Yank sox  19:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Battrick
No indicated notability, seems to fail WP:V, WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. Some additional info: Alexa ranking is 2,112,087. Peephole 13:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails the three criteria of WP:WEB:-
 * 1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
 * Multiple, not one plus an interview.
 * 2. The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.
 * No "well known and independent award" has been given to Battrick.
 * 3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.
 * Nope...  Killfest2 — Daniel.Bryant  13:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd like to add that a web directory listing (MPODG) and a podcast interview are very trivial sources.--Peephole 13:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: And I'd like to add that one is simply a copy of material on the offical website (a simple table), and the interview is still considered a primary source (WP:V and WP:CITE, so therefore it fails WP:CITE and WP:V as well as WP:WEB.  Killfest2 — Daniel.Bryant  14:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Alexa Internet must not be used to support deletion of Wikipedia articles according to WP:SET. WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE should not be applied in this case either under the spirit of the law.  The clear intention of WP:WEB is to provide a barrier against websites which can be trivially created such as vanity pages.  Battrick and other browser-based games do not fall into the "trivially created" category, and WP:SOFTWARE is merely a proposed guideline.  I'd also like to point out that Peephole seems to be on somewhat of a witch hunt against browser-based multiplayer games of late, and I'm beginning to suspect WP:POINT may be applicable.  If there is indeed a problem with including this category of game in Wikipedia, then begin a policy discussion towards this point.  Don't just arbitrarily nominate every article in a particular category for deletion to prove a point. --grummerx 19:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment:Clear intention of WP:WEB is to provide a barrier against websites which can be trivially created such as vanity pages? That's your spin. Why not try asserting notability for once instead spinning and attacking an established notability guideline? Pretty lame you have to resort to WP:POINT as well. --Peephole 20:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Saying that I'm attacking WP:WEB is a straw man, since that not what I've done at all. I'm not attacking WP:WEB itself, I'm merely questioning your application of it.  Notability is a contentious issue at best, and care should be taken to apply these guidelines only in cases where they are truly relevant.  In the absence of a definitively applicable guideline, editors should handle these on a case-by-case basis.


 * Saying that I should assert notability "for once" is also a straw man (and possibly a little underhanded), since I have indeed asserted notability in some of your other AfDs. It is true that I have not asserted notability in this particular instance, and it's for that very reason that I haven't actually registered a "keep" vote.


 * My mention of WP:POINT stems from a combination of the following:


 * You seem to have a vendetta against a particular category of articles.
 * You have ignored repeated requests by multiple contributors to have a discussion on the talk pages of the articles in question.
 * You continually bring up Alexa rankings as deletion criteria even after being repeatedly shown that these rankings are not applicable.


 * The first item by itself wouldn't raise any red flags for me, but when combined with the others it does force me to question whether or not you're just trying to get these articles deleted to make some sort of point. --grummerx 05:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment:
 * 1. A vendetta against a particular category of articles? I'm just cleaning up the wiki. There appear to be tons articles about non notable web games and wikis. Of all those I have had to afd only a couple were contested so apparantely a majority of wikipedians thinks it's right for them to be deleted.
 * 2. A discussion on the talkpages? I always clearly state my reasons for deletion in the prod or afd.
 * 3. Alexa ratings? Alexa ratings and google hits are used by many editors as an indication whether the subject has some notability. If I don't add them, usually an other editor does. By the way, I just add them as additional information. My main argument for deletion is always that the game isn't covered by any reliable sources.
 * So tell me exactly, what point am I trying to make?--Peephole 13:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - Article has been nominated for deletion before and was found to have reliable sources, has over 100,000 Battrick related Google hits, the second biggest cricket game after Stick Cricket. I will also restate that Peephole has nominated a selection of browser based games in the last week for deletion and WP:POINT has to apply, which I find quite hypocritical you saying is lame if you think Wikipedia guidlines are so important such as WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE which the article does pass with reliable sources. --JRA WestyQld2 09:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - Can no longer refer to user talk page of Peephole as it has been selectively deleted (Check talk page history). Also check all edits since 25th of July for Peephole and 80% are nominations for AfD's or comments on AfD's for browser based games. --JRA WestyQld2 09:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - Also isn't the interview produce of an online broadcaster? Not much different to Hattrick (refer to AfD) --JRA WestyQld2 09:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - Although Alexa ranking is not to be used to support deletion, www.battrick.org.uk is the secondary domain, www.battrick.org picks up a 579,149 ranking. --JRA WestyQld2 09:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment What was the previous afd? And if reliable sources have been found, ADD them to the article and list them here. --Peephole 14:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Appearently the current sources were reliable enough, it didn't have an AfD it had a notability tag like you previously did. --JRA WestyQld2 15:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep spinoff of the highly successful Hattrick and sufficiently notable for its own article. MLA 16:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 11:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete the article has no reliable sources. WilyD 20:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per absence of reliable sources reporting on the subject. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Why isn't the interview a reliable source, its produce of an online broadcaster. --JRA WestyQld2 07:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: See WP:RS.--Peephole 12:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Peephole 15:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep 7,000 players is enough for borderline notability. Onlien games are not the same thing as web sites, so WP:WEB doesn't apply.  It needs to source this, though. Ace of Sevens 00:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, it seems to meet similar criteria as another game Hattrick which was voted to be kept here albeit this has a smaller userbase, but a community of 7000 would appear to give it a degree of notability. WP:Point was cited in the previous example. Xobxela 15:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Definite keep. Games such as Hattrick and Battrick are pastimes like crosswords or sudoku. They are tests of skill that require a great deal of application for players to be consistently successful. The fact they are web-based shouldn't make them worthy than pastimes that live only in newspapers. As was stated on the Hattrick deletion vote, it has a community of over 800,000 players in over 100 countries. One point that wasn't mentioned was that the winner of the Polish Hattrick championship a year or so ago rated a mention on Polish TV news. It may have been a quirky end-of bulletin item but it surely was an indication of notability. Battrick is smaller, partly because the sport it is based on (cricket) is not as large worldwide as soccer and partly because the game itself has only been going a couple of years, compared to Hattrick's ten years or so. Nevertheless, the people who run Hattrick were sufficiently impressed with Battrick to adopt it and allow it to run from their own servers. (And yes, if you're wondering, I am a player of both Hattrick and Battrick.) Crico 08:50, 20 August 2006 (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.