Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kings of Chaos (2nd nomination)


 * 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.--cj | talk 18:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Kings of Chaos

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article on a MMORPG deleted for a lack of notability for internet materials via a low participation Articles for deletion/Kings of Chaos. That deletion was initially endorsed by the first deletion review, in which participation was equally thin. At a second deletion review, the consensus was to relist so the Washington Post article that wasn't discussed in the first AFD can be evaluated. This is a technical nomination on my part, I have no opinion. GRBerry 01:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Still Delete per the DRV. It's a single story, and given it does have coverage, I don't really want to say delete, but it's only one - and we need a call (and a precedent) for the multiple sources. --Dennisthe2 01:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 02:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The article's more about the creators of the game and their work on it than the game itself, so unfortunately this game still doesn't have non-trivial coverage to meet WP:RS. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Aside from needing multiple sources, the KoC isn't even the subject of the Post article, its more about MMORPGs in general and mentions KoC in a couple sentences. Wickethewok 04:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The game has 40,000 players. Its been around a long time. With 40,000 players, its obviously not tiny. They even award prizes to the winners.--Padawan3000 04:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Popularity is not notability, my friend. Many people look at the toilet paper after they wipe their butt, but that's not notable. ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §   Contributions ♣ 05:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable, references lead to the game's readme. And 40,000 players is not grounds for notability, since MMORPGs with millions have struggled to stay after an AfD. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 04:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. One outdated human interest story in the local paper isn't enough to overturn an AFD even when your local paper is the Washington Post. There has been no follow-up in the 2+ years since that article was printed. Google News turns up a number of hits on this phrase but zero relevant to this subject.  Rossami (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for just general jive turkey-ness. Popularity isn't notability, which is, what I feel, is the only thing that could ever save this article. ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §   Contributions ♣ 05:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article keeps getting deleted or vandalized before legitimate sources of information have a chance to fix the article and assert the site's notability. It's a work in progress, and isn't that what Wikipedia's all about? 65.29.77.240 06:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * that was me, sorry - fury 06:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And what reliable, independent sources would that be, pray tell? The only reliable source cited so far is a Washington Post article that makes a mere mention of the subject, and doesn't go in-depth into it, nowhere near enough to meet WP:RS. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 06:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Precisely the point I was trying to make in my original comment, I don't know, because the Wikipedia police keep shooting it down before anybody gets a chance to contribute. fury 08:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Right here is a chance for you to show some sources, and we're giving you five days to do so. There's nobody stopping you from show the sources we're asking for. And yet you still haven't shown any. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 17:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - When this article was last up, yes it was a shitfight, but it will be under control now. Tytrox 07:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research, and no potential to rise above that as there are no reliable secondary sources about this game (as opposed to WP's slow-news-day filler story about its creators) with which to reference a proper article. KoC has its own website; we don't need to host a poor duplicate which serves no purpose beyond advertising. &mdash;Cryptic 17:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * World Of Warcraft has it's own Wiki (WoWWiki), but yet it has it's own article. Tytrox 07:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * World of Warcraft has more secondary sources than you can shake a stick at, and yet Kings of Chaos has jack. &mdash;Cryptic 12:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If we're going to be knocked out of the game (pun intended), then where can we report articles of equal status that are still active to propose for deletion too? Tytrox 23:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, same reasoning as Cryptic. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:12, 28 March 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.