Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GATEWAY - The MU* Community


 * 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.  Kurykh  03:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

GATEWAY - The MU* Community

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Page does not adhere to Wikipedia:WEB, as well is a severe Conflict of Interest, has no verifiable citations that are from anyone but related and involved persons in said internet group and is entirelly promotional. Original author refuses to rewrite or allow any edits to stand. In short? There is very little reason for it to remain. Rubydanger (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC) — Rubydanger (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. It certainly is notable, as notable as the others in the same category. Ruby has failed to show any evidence of a conflict, and Wikipedia does not have a deadline. GreenJoe (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that GreenJoe is the creator of the article and is the only person who has worked on the article to maintain its statu quo and has constantly reverted edits made by other people who add a more realistic slant. He is clearly acting in no capacity other than to protect his baby. His vote should be highly suspect. 71.192.54.222 (talk) 05:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be further noted that GreenJoe has added the speedy deletion template to the article. Changing my vote to reflect this. 71.192.54.222 (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Conflicts. 1. Wikipedia:NOR - Article is written with a POV conflict, expressing opinions. Original author refuses (see talk page) to rewrite. This also infringes upon Wikipedia:NPOV. 2. Wikipedia:Verifiability - All citations are either non-notable resources or are from websites related to, or written by people related to the article in question. Details provided on the Talk Page. 3. Given all citations are invalid and the author refuses to allow another point of view for the article (as seen by his reverting edits), it makes the article borderline Advertising. 4. Article breaks every single of the 3 requirements for Notability. Rubydanger (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. As above. — 24.117.225.90 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. GreenJoe (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Who Cares Who gives a shit about a MUSHing resource? A hobby for a few hundred people counts as notable?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.220.14 (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. As per RubyDanger. This stinks of the owners work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.68.193 (talk) 04:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Too POV.  Written by someone directly associated with the primaries in the MU* in question.  Worded with nothing but laudatory language while all attempts to balance have been reverted.  Not notable to anybody outside of a hobby that has at most a few hundred people in it across all games.  Obviously written as a promotional scheme for the MU* in question, not as an actual, useful piece of encyclopaedic information.  Yadda yadda yadda.  The list could grow on and on. MTR (&amp;#20005;&amp;#21152;&amp;#21326;) (talk) 10:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Feels like an advertisement to me. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 04:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete As per Ruby. Non-notable article about a non-notable group. As a member of the MUSH community I can say I've never even heard of these people. Furthermore every citation offered in the article is of dubious verifiability. There is no ability of the article creator to demonstrate any notability for the subject. 71.192.54.222 (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. As noted by Rubydanger, this article is "...entirelly promotional. Original author refuses to rewrite or allow any edits to stand..." All edits to the article made by others have been reverted by Greenjoe. The original author refuses to allow any changes to make the article more neutral. The original author insists that the article says "is a recognized leader in resource and social MU*s," despite the fact that many users of the Gateway, including myself, disagree severely. In keeping with the policies of Gateway, all sources and comments which critique Gateway at all are blacklisted by Gateway and its management staff. If the original author continues to refuse to allow edits to make the article more neutral to stand, then this article should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.108.121 (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it can't be edited. I'm saying sources need to be cited. GreenJoe (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sources were cited. My citations were just as verifiable as yours were. As well, your only arguments in keeping this article is that 1. It is just as relevant as any other MU* page, which is incorrect. Otherspace has independant real world citations (newspaper) and even it is contested. Gateway doesn't have anything even comparable. 2. That Wikipedia does not have a deadline. Nowhere in your repeatedly used source of NOT can I find that stated. Rubydanger (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * His stating of Wikipedia does not have a deadline doesn't even make sense. That's like saying nothing should be deleted because everything might eventually be notable. Delete it now, add it again if it ever becomes worthy of inclusion. 71.192.54.222 (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How can edits be cited when you, Greenjoe, revert the citations? Rubydanger, as noted, added citations which you promptly reverted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.108.121 (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Those citations fail verifiability. I'm talking about 3rd party citations. GreenJoe (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then delete all of your citations. Citation 1: A post by the head admin of Gateway and clearly not a third party. Citation 2: A post by Wes Platt, who you note is involved in the Gateway project and thus clearly not a third party. Citation 3: A post by Ra, the head of Gateway. As noted, clearly not a third party. Citation 4: The website for OGR, the former website for Gateway. Clearly not a third party citation. On that other hand, you deleted a citation from a clear cut third party, namely WORA. While you can agree the validity of WORA, it is at least an actually third party unlike your own citations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.108.121 (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said Wes Platt was involved with Gateway. As for WORA, it's not third party. It's obviously biased. GreenJoe (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How can a public forum of over 1900 members be more biased than a MU* with a login average of 50? Rubydanger (talk) 06:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize, Rubydanger noted that Wes Platt is involved with Gateway. Assuming that is correct my point stands -- you have four citations written by people directly involved with Gateway and who are clearly not third parties. Whether or not WORA is a an appropriate or non-biased source is one thing, but WORA is very much a third party. The people running WORA and the vast majority of the WORA posters are not staff members of Gateway. Gateway has 8 staff members listed and WORA has, as of this date, has 1962 members. Thus, at the most, Gateway's staff comprise .0041% of the WORA membership. WORA is a third part source. 99.235.108.121 (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is called "When Online Roleplayers Attack" for a reason. Plus Wikipedia's existing policy already states that forum's not meet the verifiability requirement. It's original research. GreenJoe (talk) 06:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So is all of your citations. You compared Gateway to other wiki entries in the same catagory. I'm not allowed to make comparisons now? This time between our citations? Regardless of the fact that you cannot establish a standard just because noone bothered to address those articles yet either. Rubydanger (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your citations 'written by OGR/GATEWAY staff, They are far, far worse of a citation source than WORA. 99.235.108.121 (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The MUSHing hobby already has a few wikis. Those wikis are a more appropriate place for this article. In fact, GATEWAY already has its own article on at least one of those wikis. GreenJoe is welcome to go to that wiki and update their information on GATEWAY. 71.192.54.222 (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete there's not a lot here that makes this look notable in a real-world sense, and very few independent links to verify its notability even within the MU* context. Neither GreenJoe nor Rubydanger have provided external links that are sufficiently third-party to justify the article's existence (although admittedly the latter is not all that interested in keeping), so it should just go. JuJube (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, self-promotion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: non-notable group per WP:N. Mh29255 (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Rubydanger's excellent synopsis above. In particular, its notability even in the community it claims to represent is not considerable, and its notability in the real world is nil. Lord Bob (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of independent sources, even after several requests for such. - Ehheh (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB, borderline speedy-deletion bait. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  22:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per everybody above me. I don't see any claims of strong notability. — Cuyler  91093  -  Contributions  00:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable enough. Talk! 16:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 12:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No reliable sources from which notability could be judged. The current reference section seems to consist entirely of forum postings, which are not reliable to determine any facts according to our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete As noted, this is uncited, does not assert notability and appears to be very much like an advertisement. Slavlin (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, very promotional in tone, and does not appear to meet WP:WEB. Lankiveil (complaints 03:07, 27 January 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.