Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gleemax


 * 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 to redirect it to Unhinged. Some explanation is perhaps in order: considering this and the article talk page as well, it seems pretty clear to either delete or redirect; as the original nominator seems to agree with the redirect, let us go with that. If Gleemax is removed from the parent article due to SPAM/COI concerns, it would be appropriate to submit the redirect to RfD at that point, but the redirect hardly adds any publicity as long as the mention in the parent article still exists. Regards, --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Gleemax

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The article's subject is a fictional object which has been spoken of on articles from Wizards of the Coast. It would also seem that an employee of the company created the article. It is suspected that the article may have been created as a part of a viral campaign. Regardless, when assuming good faith, it should still be clear that this article is needing of deletion. If has no encyclopedic value and does not assert notability as defined by WP:N. SorryGuy 02:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the Unhinged page where it can be appropriately discussed. Also, since the COI concerns have been brought up, they probably do need to be addressed.  However, I don't think that this single article represents a significant campaign.  Besides, the set itself came out over 2 years ago.  What's the point of a campaign now? FrozenPurpleCube 04:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is currently unknown what exactly the aims of the campaign are, but we should know soon. Wizards has been playing plastic brains to players over the last week. www.gleemax.com has also been registered in the last week. On MTGO there has also bee found a card called Gleemox in the promotions section. Also note that emailing gleemax@wizards.com will produce reply. At any rate, redirecting the article does seem appropriate, and some of the more relatively informational parts could be used in the Unhinged article. SorryGuy 05:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I wonder what's up. But if it's just the one article, it's not a problem.  Redirect and hope that Wizards respect the concerns.  If anything else happens, deal with it later.  FrozenPurpleCube 06:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: WotC authors have been mentioning Gleemax many times in articles for years now. It probably doesn't merit an article of its own, but it's not something they just came up with as a marketing stunt. It's more like a long-standing running joke. I am ambivalent as to what should be done with the article, I just thought I'd give a little background. --Ashenai 06:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Gleemax is more than a single card, but rather a long running in-joke within WotC. The card was most likely made because of the joke, and not the other way around. Furthermore, Mark Rosewater mentioned Gleemax in 2002 - if not earlier -, some two years prior the release of Unhinged. Perhaps a redirect is necessary, but I do not think the information on the page is lost. Perhaps a merge?--Zooba 08:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Wizards of the Coast Article Bradybd 05:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Can't see why this page should be deleted if I love bees is acceptable?
 * Good question. I love bees was a fully orchestrated ARG, while Gleemax is an inside joke turned playing card.  Perhaps they both should be merged into a related article?  Bradybd 18:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I love bees was--as far as I know--mentioned in many independent sources (Tycho of Penny Arcade couldn't shut up about it for a while). Gleemax, not so much. --Ashenai 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: Gleemax is a fictional character with a lot of history in the Magic: the Gathering community, and an article for people who haven't heard of Gleemax seems as useful as other somewhat-obscure articles that are Magic: the Gathering related, such as Birds of Paradise (card), Judge (Magic: the Gathering), and other articles about particular Magic sets or people famous in the Magic community. The article could certainly be expanded, and the reference to the recently-given-out toys seems a little tacked-on and perhaps not needed, but I think there's a core that's useful here. --PeterCooperJr 19:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I didn't know an article for Birds of Paradise or MTG judges existed. I don't think they should (this doesn't mean they can't be covered elsewhere mind you).  The sets and people, however, are a different matter, and easily meet notability concerns (at least in principle, I don't know that all of the people there do.  Several of them were nominated for deletion last year if you want to review the discussions) FrozenPurpleCube 01:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I did some Googling to find references to Gleemax on the Internet that aren't from Wizards, aren't just about the card named after him, and might help indicate that there's notability beyond the current Wizards marketing campaign. Many of these are just passing references, assuming that the reader knows the reference. --PeterCooperJr 15:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.wizarduniverse.com/magazine/inquest/004379655.cfm
 * http://enchantia.com/games/magic/inventica/tournaments/Invented_Draft.html
 * http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/member.php?u=7055
 * http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gothic/msg/f7d398125578bd5d?hl=en& (and many other Google Groups postings by him)
 * http://www.starcitygames.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=165976
 * http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/5865.html
 * Merge and redirect to Unhinged. I'm very concerned with the improper use of Wikipedia to promote things, even things I like.  I'm concerned that potenital sources that could establish notability would really only establish verifiability.  Lots of Magic cards have had articles on Magic websites written about them, and I don't think that each should have a WP article. Croctotheface 17:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I find it a little hypocritical to say that the Gleemax page should be taken down, while it is obviously turning into a Marketing scheme just like I Love Bees, which has its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.45.168.113 (talk • contribs)
 * Not at all, the key point is that the other article was noted by other sources. This so far, hasn't.  If you can provide sources to back up the information, I'm sure most people would change their position.  FrozenPurpleCube 04:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Gleemax has been given a website by Wizards of the Coast at http://gleemax.com, and all official instances of the word Gleemax now have a TM symbol attached. Gleemax is thus officially a new product of WotC and therefore should not be linked under Unhinged or Magic. Also, it should be noted that the promotions for the new product (rubber brains) were sent to players of various WotC games, not just Magic. ~riddle198.178.147.1 17:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delele I would say that there is an issue with notiriety. Gleemax is such a new phonomonon, the card (which this article is not wholly about) not withstanding.  The rubber brain promotion is not mentioned, which it probabally should be.  Really there is not enough sitable sources and other published media to make this article non original work by the author.  That There is some kind of publisity exersise that is currently in operation where Wizards of the coast are sending people rubber brains with the legend MOCTODSDRZIWTAXAMEELG which is a email address backwards (gleemax@wizards.com) that leads to the website address http://www.gleemax.com which is redirected to http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=gleemax. What purpose all this is intended to serve, an in house company joke or an invitation to an exclusive community board I don't know. Finally, the intent seems just to be humorous and really doesn't merit an inclusion on wikipedia, as it dilutes the serious nature of the encyclopedia. At the most it should be a stub, or a subheading on an article to do with Magic the Gathering. It seems an original or poster created article, as really the article does not cite any primary printed sorces. E-mails on message boards don't really count. It's intresting, but really should be confined to it's source the Wizards of the coast own website and shouldn't populate wikipedia.  If and when Gleemax become part of the popular conscuousness and more is written about it in inderpendant medium, then it is worthy of imclusion.  As it is, it falls short when compeared to many other Wizards of the Coast creations that don't deserve their own entry, such as all the monsters in the monster manuals.  At most it should be a stub and be merged with another article, but that would require it to be referenced in that main article and be sufficently rewritten to follow the theme of that article.  In other words if someone wants to edit the Magic the gathering article to include a reference to Gleemax and create a stub about Gleemax to it I wouldn't object.  As this article stands it should be deleted.  Frrostie 11:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

As stated previously, http://gleemax.com is redirected to the Wizards own site at this address http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=gleemax. Yes they have trademarked it, but that comes from the card and is likely not a new thing or anything significant to this discussion. Frrostie 22:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Unhinged. Not notable enough for its own page, besides the fact that it's a marketing campaign right now. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - no coverage in independent sources. - Aagtbdfoua 01:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inside jokes aren't notable, nor are most advertising campaigns, and there is no indication that this is a particularly notable advertising campaign. Recreate the redirect if deemed necessary. Dekimasu よ! 07:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable, fictional, per nom G1  gg  y  !  Review me! 07:57, 6 June 2007 (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.