Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empires of Ambition


 * 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 both articles. --- Deville (Talk) 17:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Empires of Ambition
Also Scarab (Empires of Ambition). NN online forum; fails WP:WEB Percy Snoodle 08:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails to assert notability. MER-C 09:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB, just 16 unique Google hits, which is extremely low for a web/forum/sci-fi/wargame topic. Perhaps this AFd should be expanded to include Scarab (Empires of Ambition) as well.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - agreed. Will do. Percy Snoodle 12:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment done.
 * Keep – You know, it’s generally considered civil to inform the creator of a page that you nominate its deletion. Anyway, yes, 16 hits are not much. Rather surprising, seeing how EOA is pretty big. But I doubt you can judge the importance of an organisation on its unique hits. Seems the number has changed to 19 now, anyway. Grobtak 20:37, 26 September 2006
 * Comment sorry for not informing you. Can you quantify "EOA is pretty big" for us - perhaps it meets the notability criteria in some way we're missing, but otherwise its obscurity in terms of google hits is all we have to go on. Percy Snoodle 08:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment – Hm. I wouldn’t know how I can accurately ascertain just how important an organisation is. If you ask me, such a thing is completely subjective. But Empires of Ambition has made a lot of projects, including a movie, a Dawn of War mod, a tabletop game... Which already makes it much more than just a website. I admit that EOA does not meet the notability criteria as far as I know, but you have to remember that that is just a guideline, not actual rule. On top of that, it is rather disputed, if you look at the talk page. Think about it: “Any content which is distributed solely on the internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content”. Makes sense. Then, it says that websites needs published works to be notable? Why does an organisation that by definition works purely online, need to have published works that are not on the web? It doesn’t make any sense. Grobtak 14:44, 27 September 2006
 * Comment this isn't the place to be discussing the validity of the notability guidelines; rather whether Empires of Ambition meets them. However, your comments on the guidelines would be welcomed at the guidelines' discussion page. Percy Snoodle 08:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Nevertheless, that article is not an official rule. As such, just the fact that the Empires of Ambition article does not meet those criteria doesn’t mean it needs to be deleted. Grobtak 19:08, 28 September 2006
 * Comment Yes, the notability criteria are guidelines. No, that doesn't mean we should ignore them.  "Arrr, they be more like guidelines, really" isn't an argument which establishes that EoA is notable.  Perhaps you could give some indication of why you think EoA is notable, rather than criticising the criteria by which AfDs are judged? Percy Snoodle 08:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This fails WP:WEB by a mile. Giant onehead 22:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment – Then look at my above comment. It’s a guideline, no more. Grobtak 8:11, 28 September 2006
 * Keep – I can only say what has been said: it is a guideline, not an actual rule. Empires of Ambition has been on the internet for over a year and, whilest it's population has oddly not expanded much, regardless of our attempts at advertisement, I can easily clarify at as "Pretty big". Orky
 * Delete Sorry but if the population hasn't expanded despite your advertisment than I think we can pretty much call this spam and move on. Spartaz 22:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment – I don't think this can really be categorized as spam. Spam is useless information which serves no purpose. This article in question however does indeed serve a purpose, and that is detailing the fictional universe people have created. Orky
 * 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.