Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epic duel


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Epic duel

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Epic duel is a new multi-player MMORPG game released on December 5, 2009. In my opinion, the game doesn't appear to be notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. The article itself is quite a mess and contains a lot of in-universe information. There are no references in the article either. Only two outbound links to the game's website, and the game's own MediaWiki.  Phynicen   "Chat"  12:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Google News Archive finds only one article, from a local newspaper. Seems not to meet our notability guideline for web content. EALacey (talk) 12:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per EALacey - so far not notable. Una LagunaTalk 14:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is very new, and is unfortunately being worked on by some very inexperienced users.  The game itself is also less than a month old, with not a lot of material to write about.  The fact that newer, inexperienced writers are mainly editing this article, and the fact that it is brand new means that there is not a lot of sources or material to be written.  It might be more useful to wait a while, and make constructive edits or suggestions to the article instead of deleting it just because you don't like it.--  Jakkinx   Talk to me!  02:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't misunderstand - I haven't nominated the article because "I don't like it". The main reason for nominating the article is because there simply isn't enough information about it for inclusion at the moment. As per EALacey, there seems to be only one news article about the game indicating it currently isn't notable enough.  Phynicen    "Chat"  13:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you wish to remain purely statistical, please try to keep your opinions out of the matter then, unless they are called for. I recently did some clean up work on the article, removing some of the unnessecary in game imformation, and I believe that this and thisrefers to the game?  And the primary reason there are not many sources is less than a month old, as I said before.  Since you are all outsiders, you can't know that this is the most popular game produced by Artix Entertainment.  I advise you to wait a while, then see how it is doing. --  Jakkinx   Talk to me!  21:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Those two examples you gave do not count as reliable sources. The problem with the article, as I said in my assessment, is that right now there aren't enough sources to warrant the existence of an article right now. We don't want to delete it because we don't like it, or we don't care: we want to delete it because the article doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria right now.
 * You say that the game will receive adequate coverage in coming months - but what if it doesn't? We're not going to leave the article around waiting for the coverage to arrive, because that might never happen. Also remember that being "outsiders" does not disadvantage us - encyclopedia articles are written specifically for "outsiders". If "outsiders" cannot see what makes the article notable right now by reading the article, then there is no reason the article should exist right now. Una LagunaTalk 23:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Jakkinx you seem to not be properly understanding why the article has been labelled as deletion. It is nothing personal at all. It is to do with notability as UnaLaguna has just explained. The normal procedure on Wikipedia for articles like this is to delete until they are notable. Then you may recreate the article when the notability issue has been solved. Basically, it's too soon.  Phynicen    "Chat"  00:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh. You don't understand me at all.  I suggested those two sources, however, I was not able to check up on them myself.  And this article is not just written for outsiders, but also for insiders.  And whenever I read a game article on Wikipedia, I find it sadly lacking.  There really needs to be more information on all of them.  Maybe it doesn't meet notability criteria, or proper encyclopedic definition, but surely it is too narrow minded to class all subjects under the same rules.  I could go on for a long time about that subject, but I shall leave it at that.  I do understand why the article has been labelled for deletion, but I do not think the deletion proceedures are up to date anymore.  Also, you say you don't care, but why would you respond to my objections in such length paragraphs then?  I have met other users like you before-you are like vultures, circling young new articles, just waiting for your turn to strike.  Though you may not admit it, it gives you pleasure to delete articles, to blatantly display the full extent of your power, as you play administrator.  Some of you even are admins.  Admins are supposed to keep order on the Wiki-not enforce the laws for one's own gain or self satisfaction.  One of the reasons I am so upset is this is a very new article.  You did not really give it time to be properly edited and revised.  And should it be deleted, that will always be a mark on it's record.  Editors like you will always look on and place it lower than other articles, because it was deleted.  It will always be more likely to be deleted, because it was deleted before.  The notability criteria might not be met, but for goodness sake, the notability criteria and guidelines and all that is in pretty bad shape right now.  You have probably heard of the Constitution of the United States of America.  It was created to uphold the law of the land, but be flexible enough to change with the times.  Two hundred years later those laws are still upheld, and more importantly, they are current, up to date.  Wikipedia's rules and regulations are already out of date, and it's hardly been five years since it was made!  The point is, too many articles are being deleted these days, too many newcomers are treated harshly, and in turn, treat harshly.  Of all of you who wish to delete this, either you where treated like this when you first joined, or you never knew any other way.  It gives you pleasure to act on the side of the law, you feel pride when you casually, with a flick of you finger, erase all the hard work a newcomer put into an article.  And you believe you are in the right!  Wikipedia needs to be adaptable for all viewers, not just the narrow dogmatic ideals of editors.  Wikipedia is an Encylopedia, which is supposed to include important facts and information.  But who is to say what is important?  With the very minimal restrictions of the guidelines, it is those in power.  Those who have the power can do whatever they wish on Wikipedia.  Also, consider this.  How many of you are adults.  How many of you are in your twenties, or thirties?  I'm still a teenager.  Yet you hold me to the standards you live by, the standards only one who is twenty or thirty may live up to.  No matter what the guidelines say, that is wrong.  Period.  There is no excuse for that kind of action.  And if it is adults you need, if you say that if I want to edit here, I must be more mature, I have to live by your standards or go somewhere else, that is wrong too.  You cannot allow anyone to make an account, and then say they have to live by your standards.  If you want adults and others to edit, then you need to have a restricted application process.  Now, if you're finally done reading this massive paragraph I have written, which only took me about five minutes, don't reply to this at first.  Think about it.  Think how I feel.  Think how all the other people you've deleted feel.  Really think about it.  Don't just think: "Oh, my article wasn't notable enough, so it was supposed to be deleted."  No one thinks that when their article is deleted.  I know you probably won't do that.  Even if you try, you'll fail.  It's because you can't.  You're too narrow minded.  I see that there are reasons for the article to be deleted.  That is part of my problem.  But my main problem is the way the system is run and the way people like you act.  About the system, towards other users, towards everyone and everything on the Wiki.  See, I've accepted your point of view, that the article should be deleted.  You can't claim any kind of mental or moral superiority to me until you accept my views.  This does not mean saying, "Oh yes, we understand how you feel, but it has to go."  That means that when I am the one arguing for this article to be deleted, and you are the one's who wish to keep it, then we understand each other.  If we get to that point, then we can reach an agreement.  But then, why should you?  You have the power.  Forget about me, I'm just one editor, there's three of you.  Go ahead, use your power.  Abuse it.  It doesn't matter who you step on on the way up, 'cause you ain't comin down.  If you go ahead and delete this article, good for you.  You've completely ignored a fellow Wikipedian's ideas and effort, as well as his time, thought, and everything else that went into this article, including his feelings.  You've just made Wikipedia a little bit worse, since there's a little bit more information out there that should be in here, but isn't, because of you.  You've contributed to the chaos and anarchy that is the society of Wikipedia today.  You have caused hatred, anger, chaos, resentment, anarchy, distrust, and all you hat to do was make on little edit, maybe two.  And you do this every day.  Good for you.  I hope you're happy...--  Jakkinx   Talk to me!  04:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One obscure AfD is not the place to complain about Wikipedia policy - you can do that on the specific Wikipedia policy pages. And making personal attacks isn't very smart, either. I'm sorry you feel so upset, but the policies are in place for a reason. Plenty of content I created when I was new has since been deleted (sometimes by myself months after), but I looked up the relevant policies and after a year went from filling pages with original research to writing two good articles. We're not trying to take you down a notch or cause hatred, anger, chaos or whatever, we're just trying to help you understand what's wrong with the article. We're trying to help!
 * And I'm a teenager too :) Una LagunaTalk 07:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete or possibly merge to Artix Entertainment. I don't think it's notable yet, and I couldn't find any reliable sources on it. –MuZemike 05:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Artix Entertainment per WP:PRODUCT. Marasmusine (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Promotional page for a non-notable game. EeepEeep (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2010 (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.