Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freekick


 * 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.   Some !voters do not appear to have viewed the sources: the interview hardly mentions the game, WOG is user-driven content, and the Audio Games link is to a series of emails. Keep arguments are therefore extremely weak. Use of a redirect to free kick is open to editorial discretion. lifebaka++ 13:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Freekick

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

This game hasn't established notability, and the only verification for the article are websites to hack codes, which doesn't pass WP:N --Seascic T/C 14:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hack codes? Which of the websites listed contain hack codes? I do agree that the article doesn't not fulfill Wikipedia's criteria for notability at the moment. --130.232.122.141 (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

*Speedy Delete — Again, blatant advertising. See WP:CSD. (What's with all the MMOG articles lately being discovered that are nothing but advertising?) MuZemike (talk) 02:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So, what you're saying is that all other MMOGs which are on Wikipedia are allowed to advertise only because they are "notable", e.g. someone wrote an article about them? The argument doesn't seem logical. I've tried to write this article from an unbiased point of view. If you have objections to some parts, I'll change them. I don't think that being "here" automatically counts as advertising. Especially not blatant advertising. Notability of this article isn't established, but that doesn't make the article an advertisement by default. FreeKick exists from 2003 and I don't think Wikipedia helped to make the game what it is today.Cafa80 (talk) 12:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Cafa80 — Cafa80 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * No, I am not saying that. We cannot deal with all such problematic articles as there are so many of them. If the article is notable, then a diligent editor who sees a potential violation of WP:ADVERT should remove all material in question via a simple edit. (This has just been done with Astro empires, which allowed me to remove my recommendation for speedy deletion.) Finally, Wikipedia is not a place to promote products, games, etc. It is a place for verifiable information. To quote from Five pillars: 	Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. and is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory. I also have personal opinions regarding those who base their entire marketing strategy on a website, which I will not go into here. With all that said, the entire article would necessitate a complete rewrite. It reads like one of those four-page-long advertisements that you find in magazines. Read WP:V and WP:GNG for information on how to include reliable sources that can establish the game's notability. Finally, look at some featured articles out there; it doesn't need to be like them, but it needs to have something encyclopedic. MuZemike(talk) 20:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for advice, I'll rewrite it to make it simple. Take note, most of the stuff written here was taken from Hattrick's article, so I thought that it's okay. But I guess such style is allowed only for "notable" articles. Those are double standards, but I'll go by them and include only encyclopedic information for now. Cafa80 (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Cafa80


 * If Hattrick has a wikipedia article, there is no reason why Freekick shouldn't have one. Likewise, if Freekick's article is deleted, Hattrick's should be deleted.58.104.113.9 (talk) 10:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC) — 58.104.113.9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Just because an article exists somewhere else, doesn't mean that is a blank cheque to have your article not deleted. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Seascic T/C 14:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Rewrote it to make it more encyclopedic-like. Is it better now? Any parts which need editing/removal?Cafa80 (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Cafa80
 * It certainly reads a lot better now, but the article still fails WP:WEB. You must assert the notability of the game by providing third-party sources which have written about it - it can be a flawlessly worded article, but if there's no evidence that it's a notable subject, it will have to be deleted. --McGeddon (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the "VIP" section for you, as it that is basically advertising. However, there are still notability problems which can still cause the article to be deleted. You need to include verifiable, third party sources as I mentioned above to avoid that. In light of the changes, I change my recommendation from "Speedy Delete" to just plain "Delete" for now. MuZemike (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

*Change to Delete as nearly all blatant advertising has been removed (see diff); however, the article still faces serious notability problems as indicated by the nominator if reliable sources per WP:V cannot be found. MuZemike (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to free kick or delete, prefer redirect. Cannot find sources to establish notability and is difficult to do so given the nature of the game's name.  x42bn6 Talk Mess  12:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have found a Swedish article about the Freekick founder, to hopefully establish notability. To establish verifiability, I have linked to official Freekick manual. Feel free to edit the page a bit, I'm not so sure this is the way the references should look. Thanks. Cafa80 (talk) 08:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Cafa80
 * The manual is a primary source (not third-party), so that does not make WP:V as far as notability of the article in general is concerned. However, that doesn't mean it's not appropriate. Second, use a translator like Google translator and see what you get with that newspaper article (basically it must be in English or translated as such into English). MuZemike (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the manual is a primary source, I used it to establish verifiability, not notability. The article is now translated. There's also a third source added, from Audio Games website for visually impaired, so that makes two references. I hope. Cafa80 (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Cafa80


 * Change to Keep — I think notability has been sufficiently established now (see diff. MuZemike (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, as global notability has been sufficiently demonstrated I think. Ford MF (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I was going to close this one as keep, but decided to actually check the references - and they seem very, very weak for establishing notability. So, I decided to !vote instead of closing it. If the above keep votes have not viewed the references, I suggest they do so - it might change your mind. Tan      39  05:34, 6 August 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.